What this guy is saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He seems to be inferring that because we don't know what consciousness is, what conditions are necessary for it, when it starts, when it ends, etc., that it's reasonable to think that it may go on after death.
But wait a moment... I think it's fair to assume that there's *something* in the brain that gives rise to consciousness. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that when the brain stops functioning, there's nothing to support consciousness. To suggest otherwise is to posit a supernatural origin for consciousness - a suggestion that has zero evidence in its favor and, further, requires no explanation (there's no point trying to explain a phenomenon that has never been observed, in this case the survival of consciousness past death).
There seems to be the assumption that consciousness is a "thing", that has an independent existence; where does that idea come from? It's like saying that the magnetic field around a wire is still somehow "there" after the current is switched off.
I have to say that asking the opinions of a Buddhist scholar about the workings of the brain and mind, is about as sensible and meaningful as asking the Archbishop of Canterbury his professional opinion of how a computer works.  |