It seems to me that every time I come across a philosophical discussion it ends up boiling down to the same fundamental question that has been argued throughout the history of thought. Basically: Idealism vs Materialism. People may believe this question has been resolved, but so has evolution, right? While you still have a significant percentage of humans who don't accept evolution their position has an impact on social progress. In there is the clue to an answer to the OP's question.
If we are materialists and we accept that the human brain is a material result of evolution then we surely must in turn accept that it will have material limitations. But that's only talking about the human brain as if it's one thing with a complex yet discernible nature. But it's not. Allowing for environmental shaping as they grow, most human individuals come out of the gene pool with slight yet significant variations in their brains that determine the difference between one becoming a brain surgeon and another a waiter and so on. Sometimes the genetic differences are really significant, producing deranged psychotic killers and so on. (BTW, of what use is philosophy to the latter other than to accept what they are and accept being restrained for the public good? And if they don't accept it?)
This whole panoply of variations is what makes the existence of the modern world possible. If we were all the same we wouldn't be able do anything much better than just produce honey and fly around stinging people when they get in our way. These differences between humans are more and more being explained by reference to the environmental realisation of specific sets of genes.
In this sense I believe, modern psychology, the branch that studies how the brain actually works, and the branch that in turn discusses what this makes possible and how to fix it when it goes wrong, is what discovers the rules of the human brain as opposed to what determines them.
That's the crux of the matter, the human brain is not some abstract concept, it's a real living organ that is capable of planning spectacular things and when it goes wrong it goes wrong spectacularly.
On the other hand, if we are idealists, I suppose we can imagine the human brain to be anything we want it to be and baffle everyone else with the kind of sophistry that the human brain is vastly capable of. By which I mean principles are all well, if they're realisable in reality, but try and convert a lion to a vegetarian.
I'm a materialist and in conclusion, I don't think you should make up rules, which you then try to follow, instead you should investigate the nature of this real thing before you, and seek the best things we can actually do with it. Within reason, don't waste your life "trying to go faster than the speed of light", find better ways of living with what you know you can do already and invest your spare energy on discovering more about the material nature of the human brain. Maybe that way you'll come closer to your ideals, but not the other way around.
Addendum: My badly expressed and oversimplified point is: materialist ideas of the brain will look at solutions bounded by the current real world understanding of the upper bound of what one can reasonably expect from individual real world human brains. If you don't accept materialism you are somewhat freer to come up with unrealistic expectations. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear is not that moronic a cliché.
I thought the OP, in brief, was intimating at a set of rules that was achievable and not setting ourselves up for failure with too high expectations. I totally agree with this sentiment.
I'm sorry that my attitude may seem too flippant towards idealist philosophies in general, but life is too short. And, just in case: I'm using the traditional definition of materialism implies matter is primary over mind and idealism implies mind is primary over matter.
Many people believe that debate is a historical one that's been decided already and maybe there are more worthy idealism proponents than Bishop Berkeley to knock down, but my point about humans who don't believe in evolution, having the potential politically as a group to be socially damaging, applies also to people who believe that that historical debate is not over and mind is in fact primary over matter.
There is another discussion on this site where quite a few people are still taking Bishop Berkeley seriously and I've lost count of the number of people I've come across who think materialism is untenable.
Ultimately, precise, accurate, academically defined philosophy is only of use to those who understand it. If you want the world to change for the better, you won't have me as a party to Platonic solutions where only those who get it are in charge. I'm only interested in solutions that anyone can understand and anyone can happily be a part of. Now that could be considered idealistic, but it's just a desire, not a hint that I believe mind actually might be primary over matter.
That's a kind of idealism I can subscribe to, but it's powered by a belief in the existence of real solutions to real world problems and this keeps me busy enough without arguing with idealists and the people who come to my front door trying to sell me their god of whichever variety on whichever day.
Hence, as I said, I actually agree with the sentiment of the OP. My flippancy towards almost any kind of idealism is not an implicit 'No' to the question.
Has anyone read Pinker's "The Blank Slate"?