This is one case of the larger issue of the limits of human knowledge. According to some versions of mysticism, it is possible to unify completely with the universe so nothing in it is beyond our knowledge.
However, if you stick with the methods of the natural sciences, it seems there must be limits. For instance, if you explain an observed phenomena in terms of an underlying law, then you have the question of why that law is so. If you explain the law as due to a deeper law, then you in turn must ask why that law is so. It seems pretty clear that, going down in levels like this, eventually you would have to reach a point where you would say "That's just the way it is, we don't know why"
Now with respect to consciousness, the question is whether we can explain it through some more fundamental, knowable features of reality. Many think you can, and are striving to do so.
Others, like the noted philosopher Colin McGinn, say no, this is a question we will never be able to answer. In particular, he argues the human mind was designed to understand many sorts of things, but this is beyond its abilities. I tend to think he is right.
The truth is the opposite, and always has proven to be: the natural sciences are the only way to acquire real understanding, while every form of mysticism by which "nothing is beyond us" ends up being us fooling ourselves again.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not saying that mysticism is correct, but that there are matters that are beyond the understanding of the human mind, including natural science.
As to natural science being the only road to truth, natural science is itself founded on human experience, and human experience is also the basis forms of truth, such as ethical and mathematical.
However, if you stick with the methods of the natural sciences, it seems there must be limits. For instance, if you explain an observed phenomena in terms of an underlying law, then you have the question of why that law is so. If you explain the law as due to a deeper law, then you in turn must ask why that law is so. It seems pretty clear that, going down in levels like this, eventually you would have to reach a point where you would say "That's just the way it is, we don't know why"
Now with respect to consciousness, the question is whether we can explain it through some more fundamental, knowable features of reality. Many think you can, and are striving to do so.
Others, like the noted philosopher Colin McGinn, say no, this is a question we will never be able to answer. In particular, he argues the human mind was designed to understand many sorts of things, but this is beyond its abilities. I tend to think he is right.