I'm not really sure what you mean. This seems to be another instance of the weirdly persistent belief that "only humans can understand, and computers are just moving gears around to mechanically simulate knowledge-informed action". I may not believe in the current NN-focussed AI hype cycle, but that's definitely not a cogent argument against the possibility of AI. You're confusing comprehension with the subjective (human) experience of comprehending something.
For that, we need artificial comprehension, which we do not. Artificial comprehension, the ability to generalize systems to their base components and then virtually operate those base concepts to define what is possible, to virtual recreate physical working system, virtually improve them, and with those improvements being physically realizable is probably what will finally create AGI. We need a Calculus for pure ideas, not just numbers.