http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR read this. It posits that the human mind is not a computer. So right off the top, the assumption that the Turing halting problem as it applies to algorithms therefore applies to the human mind is an unfounded assumption. The human mind may not be governed by "algorithms" in the traditional since, and may result from the interplay of complex quantum processes. I quote the article: He argued that while a formal proof system cannot prove its own inconsistency, Gödel-unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians. He takes this disparity to mean that human mathematicians are not describable as formal proof systems, and are not therefore running an computable algorithm. If Roger Penrose is correct, this "Turing Test for Free Will" is nonsense. I tend to support the hypothesis until it is disproved that the human mind is non-computational. I can tell you that the concepts of Penrose's Objective Reduction as it applies to how human thought works is a fascinating read.
What do you think of Penrose's "objective reduction" interpretation of quantum dynamics as opposed to, say the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum dynamics or other interpretations?