I agree the arguments tend to be over complicated but I think Penroses argument is basically >it is argued that the human mind cannot be computed on a Turing M

I agree the arguments tend to be over complicated but I think Penroses argument is basically >it is argued that the human mind cannot be computed on a Turing Machine... because the latter can't see the truth value of its Gödel sentence, while human minds can And the debunk is that both Penrose and an LLM can say they see the truth value and we have no strong reason to think one is correct and the other is wrong. Either of both could be confused. Hence the argument doesn't prove anything.