Cute, but seems wrong. This seems to be an emotional appeal to Godel's incompleteness theory/similar that system's can't necessarily answer all questions about themselves, but of course a) the brain is not a formal logic system, and b) it has evolved to understand/predict our environment which seems way more complicated than our brain.
Maybe a bit early to be confident about it, but the more we see architecturally simple artificial neural nets able to perform tasks of human perception (speech, hearing, vision) and now language and primitive cognition, the less likely it seems that the brain is using a radically different or more complex approach to do these same things.
Evolution appears (as one might logically expect) to act in localized incremental ways. The result is that our body+brain is more of a modular design than a monolithic intractably complex one. We seem to be well on the way to understanding how these cortical functions of perception and cognition are working and what types of representations are being used, so once we refine our understanding of the other major moving parts such as thalamus (and thalamo-cortical loop) and hippocampus, it seems we'll be well on the way to understanding the overall architecture.
A) claiming the brain "is not a formal logic system" either makes the brain weaker, or says that the Church-Turing hypothesis isn't true. It takes a bit more than hand-waiving to make that claim.
B1) C. Elegans has evolved to understand its environment.
Sure, we don't understand (can't predict) everything about our environment, but the level of complexity we can understand - Saturn V rocket for example - is pretty astounding. If you look at the brain as a bunch of interacting subsystems, then the level of complexity really doesn't appear that great. I think historically people have overestimated the theoretical complexity of the brain for a variety of reasons.
> If the brain were simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too simple to understand it.