I need a volunteer

[The Reality Salesman01]

Could you tell me how would you deal with two totally different things like the body and the consciousness?

I think you mean body and mind, not consciousness. Consciousness is a state of mind, and it is entirely contengent upon the material brain. Are you suggesting that you have data to support that mind can exist without the material brain? If I take my camera, and snap a shot of the ocean, do you consider the data that produces the image on my screen to be immaterial? If I break open my camera, there will be no ocean, but none the less, the image can be produced so long as all of the pieces of the camera are functioning to produce the image. When the camera breaks, do you believe that the data goes on to heaven? This is the line you are taking here. It's intellectually bankrupt.

One is physical and can be perceived with the physical senses and perception the other is not physical so it require a different kind of perception.

You haven't established any of this yet. What you are talking about is a shift of perspective. The thrid person perspective is what the brain and body are doing and how they are doing it (recognizing the brain activity associated with decision making, nerve and muscle activity, and then the movement itself) and then there's the First Person perspective which experienced the decision to move and the internal sensations associated with it (What being/using a body is like). The first person perspective is unaware of HOW the body is moving, only the descriptive experience of it. You are confusing the two perspectives by attributing the experience with the power to cause movement. They are two different complimentary aspects that make up the whole of the entire explanation. But they are seperated only by perspective. Just like the camera. It's the difference between an internal viewpoint and an external view point. The internal view point is the effect of what can be observed externally. You're blurring the line and it's causing you to draw flawed inferences.

Not to mention you've got your work cut out for you when you consider the sense organs responsible for producing the experiences encountered in consciousness. If you are suggesting that there is an additional "stuff" through which consciousness survives after death, then why is it that when specific brain organs responsible for sight and sound are damaged, we lose our ability to see or hear. If all of our brain functions are crossed out one by one, we quickly find ourselves unable to percieve anything about our surroundings or even our own bodies. If our entire body is destroyed, what exactly is it that you think will be surviving? An agent stripped away from all physical means of manifestation is indistinguishable from an agent that doesn't exist at all. You've got a really deep hole to dig yourself out of, or you can just climb out, and realize it doesn't make sense to dig out of a hole.

Can you really say that with your physical perception you are able to understand what is not physical?

You are starting with the assumption that non-physical stuff exists. What exactly are you proposing this non-physical stuf is? You seem to be confused about perspectives, and your physical experience of thought. But, if you put a bullet through your brain, I assure you, you won't be troubled with such non-sense anymore. Saying a physical thing is like a non-physical thing only not physical gets us nowhere. You're simply asserting nonsensical utterances without justification or explanation.