I don't understand the distinction you're making there
"Behaviorally aware" is a term I'm using to talk about consciousness without invoking the "hard problem of consciousness".
The brain is a structure which takes various inputs, does a bunch of operations to them, and produces various outputs. We can see how that works, and to some extents we can make machines that do the same.
When someone's "unconscious", it means they are no longer responding to the environment (taking inputs, producing outputs) appropriately. A "conscious" being is responding appropriately to the environment. It's various internal parts are interacting with each other in an organized way, and they are also interacting with the external world in an organized way. Behaviorally speaking, they are aware and reacting.
None of the above has yet involved qualia, subjective experience, or the hard problem of consciousness. We are using the word "conscious" to mean two separate things - "aware-in-the-information-processing-sense" and "subjectively-experiencing-qualia".
So you can talk about whether or not there are conscious (information-processing) structures which continue on after we die without tackling subjective experience or qualia. And when you talk about these structures, you still have to use parsimony...just because the information-processing structure is no longer in the "observable-physical world" or whatever doesn't mean it's not still a complex, rule-following mathematical structure.
Which is why I say, in the context of this conversation, there is no need to invoke The Hard Problem
A lot of discussion on the subject consists of people writing their conclusion in different words and using it as an argument for their conclusion.
I think this is because this is primarily a matter of definition. The "answer" to the "hard problem" is decidedly not empirical and purely philosophical. All non-empirical statements are tautological in nature. Arguments aiming to dissolve the question rely upon altering definitions and are necessarily tautological.
"Behaviorally aware" is a term I'm using to talk about consciousness without invoking the "hard problem of consciousness".
The brain is a structure which takes various inputs, does a bunch of operations to them, and produces various outputs. We can see how that works, and to some extents we can make machines that do the same.
Why call this "consciousness"? Pretty much any machine that we make takes various inputs, does a bunch of operations to them, and produces various outputs. Is my computer (my real computer, not an imagin...
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.