After thinking about it some more, I think my point comes down to this: when we say that "messing with the brain messes with consciousness", how do we really know that? How can we infer that someone else is conscious?
We infer from behavior that someone is conscious, but can we infer that from the absence of behavior that there is an absence of consciousness? That's like saying A => B, therefore ~A => ~B.
And if we can't infer whether or not someone is unconscious, we have no data on what does or doesn't lead to unconsciousness.
when we say that "messing with the brain messes with consciousness", how do we really know that?
Everything about someone's personality and mental functioning can be affected by affecting the brain. Take an example; people with a certain type of brain damage can stop recognising faces. Their qualia have been fundamentally messed up. They can see the world just fine, but if their mother comes to talk to them, until she says 'hello' and they recognises her voice, they don't know who she is.
There are so many cases like that.
Now do you really think...
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.