It might be helpful to be more specific. For example:

"mind type" - Do you mean a human brain, with the biological structure and limits of the hypothetically smartest being that is still considered human? Or do you mean any neural net structure of the same pattern and biochemical nature of the human brain, but without any limits on size, resources, lifespan, etc.?

"comprehend" - Do you mean comprehending at least in an abstract way, or truly understanding it? For example, it is trivial to build mathematical models for space-time with more than 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, and perhaps other kinds of dimensions, but could we truly comprehend them?

Do we get other tools, such as computers, to help with simulations and analysis?

If our experience is simulated, then could that outer environment have something other than spatial dimensions and time? Our brains seem to be limited to modelling in a framework of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. Perhaps that outer environment has more dimensions, or other kinds of dimensions that are not like time and space as we understand them. (by "dimension", I mean something that provides some kind of scale that separates components in a way to permit relationships/interactions, for complex mechanisms to form)

Sorry, I maybe was not clear. Please, understand that I am looking for answer not from technical point of view but philosophical. Simulation theory is not part of my question, this question simply arises a lot within that context. Let me rephrase my question in more abstract form: Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time?

When you say ‘given enough time’ do you mean within the constraints of a human lifetime, or given unlimited time - which would render this human mind ‘in-human’?

My personal view. I don't think its possible. I agree with Colin Mcginn where he says that we suffer from "cognitive closure". There are some things that we don't understand now which we will understand later as we make progress. But then, there are things which. I believe, we will never be able to fully grasp / understand eg. what consciousness is; complete self-understanding; infinity and quite a few others, including a full understanding of the "complexity" concept. So, I subscribe to mysterianism (and, please not "mysticism".)

I am fine with unlimited time

Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

Maybe.

one can show that no matter how hard a modern human would explain differential equations to a monkey it would never understand. Is there a way to point out that our mind type is capable of understanding any concept of any complexity given enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

I don't think the human mind is as capable as that, and I say that because I know I have understood things in the past that I have then forgotten and had to work again in order to understand again.

So when you ask about the extent of complexity that a mind can understand, that is one of the limiting factors - but it also can be exercised. Consider a chess player, for example. They have a huge realm of possibilities to consider, and yet it is like a drop in the ocean when compared to the realm of possibilities that one would be considering with regards to the reality of life on earth (and the pieces beyond).

Seriously, considering that the ruling of a nation is hierarchical and delegations are appointed for the purpose of abstracting the vastness of considerations to the upper levels, we cannot escape the reality that the human mind is limited - not only in it's knowledge (as time would assist), but also in it's scope of consideration (in computing terms, you might see the restriction similarly to having insufficient RAM to contain all the data necessary for processing a job at once - and combine that with an element of degradation found in the prior calculations when they are retrieved from the swap - as mentioned above).

Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

That's quite a different question though! .. and an interesting one too! .. because we need to ask what level of understanding is necessary in order to say that the human mind has understood. For example, we know that children don't have as much understanding as grown-ups, but they are capable of understanding the grown-up's intentions sufficiently that it can be said that they understand. Yet, it might not be said that they understand the grown-up's intentions as well as the grown up does, but for the purposes, the grown up is satisfied that they understand sufficiently as also the child is satisfied.

In the bible we find examples of that, where God is saying that a human can never reach His level (Isaiah 55:9, Isaiah 27:4), yet also finding that there is a level of understanding that is sufficient (Psalms 95:10, John 5:24, 1 John 3:21).

Within the context of simulation hypothesis I often hear an argument that the high level being simulating us can do that for reasons that we cannot even comprehend. As an argument one can show that no matter how hard a modern human would explain differential equations to a monkey it would never understand. Is there a way to point out that our mind type is capable of understanding any concept of any complexity given enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

There are degrees of understanding, and I don't think that it's controversial to say that we wouldn't be capable of fully understanding a concept to the degree that a being of greater complexity or a being that's "built" differently would.

Until consciousness can be explained, mystery is alive and well!

Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

I get annoyed with my dog for crapping on the garden path. I’d like to be able to say ‘Look, dog, can’t you see that your crap is revolting?’ But the problem is, even if the dog could understand me, he has no concept of revulsion.

But the problem is, even if the dog could understand me, he has no concept of revulsion. — Wayfarer

And maybe it does, but it doesn't share your view on revulsion. Perhaps what you find revolting, it views as sanitary.

Doesn’t undermine my point, although it was made somewhat whimsically.

Sure.
Because understanding is reciprocal, there's humans who don't understand other humans; as is often the case on the forum.

Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

"Understand" is too vague a requirement to give an answer. It's vague even in the usual context of human interactions, but if you want to apply it cross-species, I don't even have an approximate idea of what such understanding would involve.

Is there a way to point out that our mind type is capable of understanding any concept of any complexity given enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

Our minds are specifically structured to mentally process phenomena that are specifically important to human beings and other similar animals. We are probably unable to conceptualize anything that does not fit into that structure. Our vision of reality is unavoidably human-centric. We are limited in what we can see or understand not by our level of intelligence but in our kind of intelligence.

The reality we experience is made up of just those pieces we are able to jam into the mold of our physiological, neurological, and psychological processes.

what about empathy? we can make ourselves feel as other being and not necessarily human.

that is back to my monkey point only u used dog example. I think our mind might be different from any animals in principle. Then such logic would not apply.

what about empathy? we can make ourselves feel as other being and not necessarily human. — IuriiVovchenko

I don't understand the question. Our minds are structured to feel empathy.

You said "Our minds are specifically structured to mentally process phenomena that are specifically important to human beings and other similar animals. We are probably unable to conceptualize anything that does not fit into that structure."
I think empathy overrides that cause we can imagine ourselves as not humans.

I think empathy overrides that cause we can imagine ourselves as not humans. — IuriiVovchenko

I didn't say we can't imagine things that aren't human, I said we are constrained by a brain and mind that evolved along with the rest of us. It is structured to address the issues we and our ancestors dealt with. It leaves a lot out that isn't relevant, or at least wasn't 200,000 years ago.

Our minds are structured to feel empathy. There's no reason I can't apply that to geese, frogs, or creatures from Tao Ceti.

Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

The nature of the human mind is such that this capacity, while potentially realisable, cannot be realised in isolation. A single human mind, working collaboratively with a hypothetical abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, can eventually understand the intentions of that mind sufficiently to approach a functional shared meaning. For all intents and purposes, they would be of ‘one mind’.

I think a human mind that increases its awareness, connection and collaboration with other minds increases its capacity for shared meaning/understanding. This includes other animals. Human minds are structured to enable this, and are not as limited by evolution or physical structure as some might think.

Having said that, an awareness of this evolution and physical structure of the human mind may interfere with this capacity in reality. Because unless this hypothetical abstract mind can identify with this element of the human mind experience, and not have its own evolution and physical structure with which the human mind cannot identify, then there is an imperfect connection between the two minds.

I wanted to start a new thread but @StreetlightX will surely merge it with your thread.

So, here's a simple proof that humans can understand everything.

1. All things in nature are things things that have patterns
2. All things that have patterns are things that the human mind can comprehend
Therefore
3. All things in nature are things that the human mind can comprehend

Key assumption: All things in nature have patterns.

Some might object that chaos is real but notice there are laws in nature like gravity, thermodynamics, etc. Surely chaos is simply order yet undeciphered!!!???

TheMadFool — TheMadFool

Thank you! This is what I was looking for. I was only guessing that it is the case and we can understand anything.

Dogs can learn that though. I teach them the words "yucky" and "yummy". So when teaching a dog where to do his yuckies, I show him the poop and say "see this? .. it's yucky" then I throw it where it is ok (in the far corner) and say "you're a good boy when you do the yuckies over there" and "that's a good place for the yuckies". They understand that pretty quick. The longest it took for me to teach that to a dog, was about a week and a half.