What if they're still experiencing and feeling things, but are just incapable of communicating this to us at the time, and are incapable of remembering it?
A hypothesis thus described is untestable. Moreover, it's inconsequential: the observed result is the same regardless of whether the hypothesis is true or not. In such a case, the hypothesis can be safely ignored because it adds nothing to our models.
1) Untestable doesn't mean wrong.
2) What about the possibility that we just can't do a good job of measuring peoples' consciousness given our level of technology?
I've read a fair amount on Less Wrong and can't recall much said about the plausibility of some sort of afterlife. What do you guys think about it? Is there some sort of consensus?
Here's my take:
Edit: People in the comments have just taken it as a given that consciousness resides solely in the brain without explaining why they think this. My point in this post is that I don't see why we have reason to reject the 3 possibilities above. If you reject the idea that consciousness could reside outside of the brain, please explain why.