Seeing red

[Angrboda]

Or maybe that's just how [to recognize objects] our minds divide things up for reasons which have to do with the evolution of our brains.  Take it for granted?  Sure, because that's what our brains do.  I can no more step outside of that than I can fly.

This position straddles the line between the brutal and the absurd. EITHER evolutionary pressures are objectively intelligible, in which case the efficacy of reason doesn’t depend on how brains work, OR people cannot trust the artifice of reason, in which case no one can attribute its existence to objective evolutionary pressures.

I don't know what you mean by this. But what I can say is that our breaking things up into objects may have served an economy of perception and action similar to the robot car's perceptions and actions formed a feedback loop which furthered the project of remaining on the road. So the evolutionary pressures that resulted in us breaking things up into objects may be intelligible. However, it's also possible that breaking things up into objects was a consequence of a limitation of the architecture of the brain at the time. At this point, we simply don't know how it evolved.

What one can say; however, is that when someone commits to an absurd reality he or she foregoes the ability engage productively with others over fundamental issues. Many people have an intuitive sense that philosophies based on doubting intelligibility undermine the shared understandings on which most societies build its consensus about values, responsibilities, identity and meaning.

Then let it be undermined. I have a feeling a full understanding of things like meaning and intentionality will do a lot more to undermine consensus meanings than any quibble about the intelligibility of reason. This is little more than an argument from tradition. Semantic incommensurability is the first step on the road to progress. For my part, I take a middle path in concluding that reason is probabilistically reliable, but not rationally intelligible; our reason doesn't follow strictly logical lines of behavior.