I just received an answer to this question on Yahoo Answers and I consider it worthing: "Two aspects of understanding are familiarity and education (there are more than two, but I'm just focusing on those).
We can educate a chimpanzee to use a great many things in our world. They lack brain capacity to understand complexity, but they can be taught rudimentary skills and may even become quite proficient. Arguably it could be said that chimps are 100,000 - 1,000,000 years behind us in brain capacity (depending on which expert we listen to).

I should think humans are more adaptable than chimps, so if properly educated and familiarised with a functional piece of advanced alien technology, we could begin to comprehend the basics.

I do see your point though.
For example the chimp is unable to understand even intermediate level philosophical concepts and will likely never see the true purpose of poetry. They may develop a taste for the way words are spoken, but that is only due to an appreciation for sound or a connection with the person.

As for whether there really are concepts, technologies or natural phenomena that we are unable to understand, I cannot provide a definitive answer, purely because the specifics wouldn't be ready to avail themselves to our brain.
I think it's reasonable to extrapolate that this scenario is possible, perhaps even likely." - Salubrious proclivity

Are there things that our current mind cannot comprehend, understand or even imagine no matter what?

What a useless question.

What a useless question. — Banno

So, presumably, any answer, either 'yes' or 'no' would be equally useless? What about any and all discussion stimulated by the question; also useless? Absolutely void of any possible interest at all?

How could there be a "yes" answer? That implies that we imagined the unimaginable; comprehended the incomprehensible.

No, not really; it merely entails that we imagined, not the unimaginable, which would be a contradiction, but that there might be the unimaginable, despite our obvious inability to imagine what it could be.

But in supposing that there might be unimaginable things, you are imagining the unimaginable.

It's a rather clear example of banging your head on the walls of our world, the walls of our language. Part of imagining is that it is without limit; anything can be imagined. But then, asking if there are things we cannot imagine introduces a contradiction.

Rubbish. Even imaginable things are to some degree uncertain, vague or indeterminate in our mind. So we can talk about that which is by the same token the most radically vague, uncertain or indeterminate in regards to our imagining.

We can imagine a zero, a big fat nothing. Yes, that imagining may be rather fuzzy on closer examination, but so is our conception of everything, or even something.

It is simply the constraints-based logic of speech and thought that means all acts of imagining are in the same boat. What we take as enumerately imagined - some set of concrete objects conceived - is never in fact as concrete as we pretend. So whatever hasn't or couldn't be imagined is merely the same general thing, just at the other end of the spectrum in terms of it apparent (in)definiteness.

But in supposing that there might be unimaginable things, you are imagining the unimaginable. — Banno

But. "imagining the unimaginable", that is simply a contradiction, isn't it? I think the problem does lie in the different senses in which imagining the unimaginable can be parsed. In one sense it is a contradiction, and hence impossible; and in the other it is not a contradiction, and hence possible. That's why I drew the distinction between 'imaging the unimaginable' in the sense of positively imagining it (a contradiction) and 'imagining the unimaginable' in the sense of 'imagining that there might be the unimaginable', and I can't see how this latter is contradictory.

To put it another way, we can't imagine what the unimaginable is like in a positive sense, because that would be a contradiction in terms, but can only imagine it in the negative sense of what it is not, i.e. it is not imaginable.

This is a nice way of thinking about it that puts it on a continuum from totally unimaginable to totally imaginable; the extremes of which are never actually realized.

In the OP and elsewhere it is assumed that some animals understand or imagine only so much of the world whereas others, such as humans, have the capacity to understand or imagine different or more features of the world. It might, then, seem meaningful to ask whether a future human could have the capacity to understand or imagine features of our world that we don't. Or whether we are incapable to understand or imagine what future civilizations will be like.

But it is trivially true that discoveries have an effect on one's capacity to understand or imagine the world. Proto-human monkeys had no human language, nor a theory of evolution, with which they could understand or imagine what a future civilization is. Once we have language etc. it is easy to imagine future humans having discovered new features of the world that we don't understand yet.

We can't imagine the unimaginable, nor comprehend the incomprehensible, for the obvious reason that it has nothing to imagine nor to comprehend. We might, however, have the capacity at time t1 to understand what we will discover at t2, but obviously don't since it is yet to be discovered.

Yep, the complementary limits on the knowable. And as usual, limits are what knowledge may approach with asymptotic closeness, but - by definition, in being the absolute limit - never completely reach.

Banno needs to make up his mind whether he believes in epistemological absolutism or not. He hankers after some form of pragmatism or knowledge relativism but keeps getting in his own way with experience-transcending claims.

I was asking if human evolution will transform us in[to] something that we have no capacity to understand... — Eugen

Possibly. It has in the past, so it's reasonable to expect that it might in the future.

An observation regarding human incomprehensibility:

Unique to the Animal Kingdom, the faculty of language in the genus Homo evolved from a strictly communication function to include a verbal modelling function. With this new functionality came new potential. Homo sapiens accurately models its environment, adding to its knowledge base to an extent not possible in Homo erectus or Homo habilis (due to less brain capacity), and enabling the development of technology which radically changes its environment. Changes in environment cause new adaptations, and the cycle repeats itself.

So, the acquisition of a verbal mode of thought is a point of concentration in human evolution. Einstein's mode of thought seems to have been mostly iconic. What type of enhanced functionality will the next evolutionary point of concentration bring? Absolute mutual comprehension? And what will be its consequences? It's a bit like asking Homo habilis what it will do with language.

That implies that we imagined the unimaginable; comprehended the incomprehensible.

I wasn't talking about imagining the unimaginable, because if there is something unimaginable by its nature, than nobody would be able to imagine it, regardless of how evolved s/he is. I will give you the same example: if you would get back in time and would meet a barbarian you would be able to explain him about a smartphone and he would be able to understand: you could tell him that is a tool used to communicate with others instantly on large distances, to listen music or to access information. He would have all these concepts. But if you want to do the same thing with an animal, it would be simply impossible. Are we a barbarian or an animal compared with a much much more advanced civilisation?

No, not really; it merely entails that we imagined, not the unimaginable, which would be a contradiction, but that there might be the unimaginable, despite our obvious inability to imagine what it could be.

Unimaginable by its nature or by our brains' capacity?

We can imagine a zero, a big fat nothing. Yes, that imagining may be rather fuzzy on closer examination, but so is our conception of everything, or even something.

Maybe a more advanced civilisation would be able to understand things like nothing or infinite?

We can't imagine the unimaginable, nor comprehend the incomprehensible, for the obvious reason that it has nothing to imagine nor to comprehend. We might, however, have the capacity at time t1 to understand what we will discover at t2, but obviously don't since it is yet to be discovered.

Humanity has the same basic set of wishes over time: to travel on ground, under ground, on water, on air, in space, other universes; to obtain and access information; to read other minds; to communicate instantaneously with other people from other corners of the world; etc.. So cell-phones, computers, satellites, robots are nothing more than direct accomplishments of these wishes. There can be indirect accomplishments, and here I'm referring to more detailed pieces of technology that doesn't serve as solutions for our ancient wishes, but as solutions for the technologies used to satisfy our ancient wishes (e.g. antennas). There is actually nothing that we're doing today and that its final purpose was not in our ancestors' minds in the form of desire, therefore nothing unimaginable or uncomprehensible for the ancient Romans.

Possibly. It has in the past, so it's reasonable to expect that it might in the future.

I totally agree with the fact that language and communication was a huge step, but no more than in the sense of giving us the capacity to express in a more clear manner thoughts that had been already present in our minds until we found words. I believe that notions like gods, universe, other universes, immortality have been here since humans were humans. On the other hand, animals don't think about gods and parallel universes.

I totally agree with the fact that language and communication was a huge step, but no more than in the sense of giving us the capacity to express in a more clear manner thoughts that had been already present in our minds until we found words. — Eugen

Agreed.

I believe that notions like gods, universe, other universes, immortality have been here since humans were humans. — Eugen

There is a difference between interpretation and verbal modelling. Interpretation produces concepts, but verbal modelling constructs a set of related concepts, arranged to represent a composite concept or system. Whether the concepts you mentioned are simple concepts or mental models probably determines when they appeared in the evolutionary process.

On the other hand, animals don't think about gods and parallel universes. — Eugen

Agreed. They sense, interpret, and nonverbally model their environment. But without language, they cannot verbally model their environment.

The point is rather that the meanings of words aren't exhaustible. You could always contrive to find more. But then there also has to be some point to it. Meaning involves a triangulation between the world, the sign and a purpose.

Imagination couldn't function unless vagueness was its basic feature. That is how we can be impressed when by contrast it seems we are pretty definitely conceiving of various things in "exhaustive enough to be useful" fashion.

So in terms of your OP, the question would be whether this civilisation a million years hence is still using language in much the same way (as well as being neurologically much the same in the way in which they are biologically conscious of the world).

Already - because we can use the language of maths - we do conceive of the infinite and nothing in ways that constrain their meaning in more definite fashion.

So the question may be how much more could language evolve as a tool of precise thought in the next million years? Maybe not a lot if we just extrapolate from the speech and math we have - could their grammar or syntax become much more flexible or universal?

So in some ways, the answer to your OP is trivial. We already know - from basic epistemological argument - that we should expect there to be known unknowns and unknown unknowns. But my point is that then - for speech acts - speech has the further power of counterfactuality. We can speak even of the unknown unknowns and say something about them in a way that is humanly meaningful. We can talk in ways that constrain them in ways we regard as useful.

"imagining the unimaginable", that is simply a contradiction, isn't it? — John

Indeed; that is exactly what I said.

but can only imagine it in the negative sense of what it is not, i.e. it is not imaginable. — John

So your claim is that we can imagine a class of things, such that we cannot imagine any element of that class?

But if you want to do the same thing with an animal, it would be simply impossible. — Eugen

Meh. Maybe. I'd be confident that one could show an ape how to use a phone.

AS for imagining a culture I don't understand, all I have to do is look at the USA. Trump and guns - WTF?

How to get to distant galaxies. Can't imagine it yet. Maybe one day, though.

So your claim is that we can imagine a class of things, such that we cannot imagine any element of that class? — Banno

Well yes, as you just did. :)

The problem is John is already imagining them. He knows the set of the unknown is not empty. In his mind, he knows not only there is a set of the unknown, but that it contains unknown things.

Rather than beyond his imagination, these things have a clear presence within it, even if knows none of their details.We know it false John cannot imagine them; he just did talking about how he didn't know who or what they were.

So your claim is that we can imagine a class of things, such that we cannot imagine any element of that class? — Banno

Yes, but 'imagine' here has the negative sense of 'allow for the possible existence of', rather than the positive sense of 'forming a definite image of'; we can allow for the possibility of things we cannot imagine.

Unimaginable by its nature or by our brains' capacity? — Eugen

They're essentially the same thing, aren't they? Take the idea of the warping or curving of spacetime due to mass in GR. To enable a simulated visualization of what is happening, an image of a two-dimensional
space (a plane) curved by a sphere is usually presented. We can easily imagine a two-dimensional surface warped into a third dimension. However we cannot even begin to imagine (in the sense of form a definite image of) a three dimensional space warping into a fourth dimension. But we can imagine (in the sense of allow for the possibility of, or even assert the actuality of) a three dimensional space warping into a fourth dimension. Our inability to imagine this in the first sense is due both to the nature of the purported phenomenon and the nature of our brains (the brain's capacity).

Maybe there are huge things like the wheel that we're missing right now, let alone far future civilisations. Some ancient civilisations were developed in many fields but had no wheel, a trivial thing at first sight. It wasn't because their lack of intelligence or technology to create it, the simple truth is that it wasn't in their mind.