I do not agree, humans experience some interactions with Turing machines "in and of itself", because sensory data becomes irrelevant. A bit is always a bit.

This gives an argument about intuitionism: If you say that math is a byproduct of our wetware and nothing else, how come we can successfully teach it to turing machines, and have that process fill us on some holes we had in our understanding of maths, but not terribly large holes?