Epistemological Closure?

It seems to me that most technologically-inflected discussions of what it means to be human begin from the assumption that our experience represents some kind of necessary closure as terminal (and teleological) endpoint. The notion that intelligence or sentience (and intelligence- or sentience-like) artefacts, entities and systems could ever represent any kind of pinnacle (or local minima) of developmental achievement strikes me much more as the core reflexivity and narcissistic kernel of a cultural and linguistic system of belief that is endemically oriented towards and anchored upon such terminal abstractions. Could a more fruitful engagement with technological self-reflection be acquired through considering that neither human nor machine represents (or will ever represent) the benchmark and ground state here, rather – that each instance of organisational comprehension or problem-solving provides an insight into deeper biases and dynamical symmetries in nature and its very many emergent minds?