[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.