[md224]

It says a lot that you felt the need to hedge against the assumption that you were talking about religious beliefs. These days it seems like there’s a materialist mindset that assumes anyone who questions certain assumptions about consciousness (e.g. that it is a creation of the brain that begins and ends when the brain does) has ventured into the terrain of religion, the supernatural, or “magic” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). It doesn’t seem to occur to people that consciousness itself is completely inexplicable and therefore all bets are off regarding its true nature. These assumptions people have are based on faith (yes, faith) in a hypothetical explanation that has yet to materialize. Until scientists cross the Explanatory Gap (which is more like a chasm), nobody has the right to tell anyone that their speculation about consciousness is kooky or unscientific or whatever. The only thing that’s unscientific is letting one’s thought be constrained by rigid dogma regarding what is and isn’t possible.

I feel your pain (if I’m understanding you correctly, that is). It sucks to be trapped in a no-man’s-land between scientific dogma and religious dogma. We need a better way forward.

[redial]

The problem is one of humility. If you admit that something is at this point inexplicable then that is where you should stop explaining it. Sometimes I don't know is the only real answer. Because if you want to make this statement:

> It doesn’t seem to occur to people that consciousness itself is completely inexplicable and therefore all bets are off regarding its true nature.

You have to, ahem, explain it.

[md224]

Sure, but the problem is that many people don’t demonstrate this humility when they act like it’s ridiculous to wonder if consciousness exists prior to conception or after death. Ruling these out requires an unwarranted assumption about the relationship between consciousness and the brain.

I agree that people should show some humility and admit that we have no idea if or when consciousness begins and ends. Anyone who makes definitive claims about the temporal limits of consciousness should, as you said, provide an explanation of how they know this.

[redial]

It goes both ways. If you claim there is an unwarranted assumption about the relationship between consciousness and the brain you have to prove it. All I see is consciousness is highly correlated with having a brain.

> I agree that people should show some humility and admit that we have no idea if or when consciousness begins and ends.

I think our understanding of it is not as vague as you claim. We can see consciousness develop in all kind of animals; infants are less conscious than adults and elders show a higher degree of loss of consciousness. Furthermore, it is linked with brain activity somehow, as damaged brains show erratic consciousness related behavior. There is a lot more to learn, a lot, but to say that we know nothing is very dishonest in my opinion.

That is assuming we are talking about the same kind of consciousness you and I. But I've got a feeling we are not.