Comment by godelski

  > It's not just a tautology, it's

Inconsistent logic.

You've made a grave assumption in treating this as a binary problem: comprehensible or incomprehensible. The truth is that this lies along a spectrum. I can "comprehend" a color which my eyes can't see but this is different than trying to comprehend red. Or as a variant, I can comprehend a color that I can't see naturally but if I go into a lab and they simulate those cones in very specific ways I won't ever be able to really imagine it. Seeing it will be clearly a different level of comprehension.

  > In practice, we'll never run out of mystery or ignorance or mistakes.

I fully agree with this but also for some reasons unmentioned. Truth has infinite precision, a thing we will never achieve. Similarly my namesake showed there are limits to axiomatic systems.

  > Brains are Turing complete.

And there are problems that can't be solved by Turing complete machines. That only means they can solve computable problems but there's plenty that aren't. Very famously the halting problem isn't. And in the real world there's many problems which are intractable. And some are more intractable than others