The Universal Explainer Hypothesis and the Limits of What Humans Can Do

The limits of what humans can do is exactly equivalent to the class of computational theory that computational theory says. So we've got every reason at this point to believe that the brain is a regular Turing machine, not even a quantum Turing machine. And I think he brings all that up in the article and seems to suggest that that's why just AGI is on the wrong path. But if you turned it around and said, well, the reason we don't have AGI yet is because we're basing our programming and our ideas on what Deutsch might call bad philosophy, most people would look at you like you were crazy or am I misunderstanding?