Thanks for your response, Dan.

My point in this article is to show that ALL understanding is limited. It must be, because you only get a being that understands things via the process of evolution, and evolution only works on finite, fragile beings whose choices can lead either to reproductive success or failure.

An intelligence that did not arise from evolution, but just popped into existence (either because that is it's nature, like God, or because it had its programming installed all at once) would be just like the occupant of Searle's Chinese Room. It would only appear to understand.

As for your claim that our intellect doesn't evolve, I would disagree. At the phylogenic level, our brains have clearly evolved to perform a particular kind of cognition. And at the ontogenic level, neural plasticity allows the rewiring of the brain based on an individual's life experiences. But the ontogenic builds on the scaffolding of the phylogenic.

Regarding Descartes, I believe he was wrong to assert that his consciousness was a fundamental datum. Check out this article if you're interested in a more detailed explanation. https://medium.com/fuck-niches/we-know-ourselves-through-others-c2172bdec8f8