"When you are dead you cease to exist. That is what mainstream science teaches."
I suggested that “mainstream science teaches” no such thing. Yanniru answered that
“We are almost all blocking Mike’s posts.”
Yanniru continued in a subsequent post:
”But regarding what mainstream thinks happens to consciousness when you die, I can only offer anecdotal references.” (Anecdotes cited; omitted in this reply).
”Here is a link to what Crick thinks about consciousness. He is as mainstream as anyone. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html”
So I went to that link Yanniru had provided. There, Crick wrote: ”The main purposes of this review are to set out for neuroscientists one possible approach to the problem of consciousness and to describe the relevant ongoing experimental work. We have not attempted an exhaustive review of other approaches.”
The purpose of the review, then, admit the question is far from settled.
It seems clear that Crick is not teaching “you cease to exist at death” as a conclusion of mainstream science. This supports what I wrote in response to Yanniru, and which he disdained. A few lines down, Crick says something that sounds like Tarvo in its objectivity:
”We can state bluntly the major question that neuroscience must first answer: It is probable that at any moment some active neuronal processes in your head correlate with consciousness, while others do not; what is the difference between them?”
So, if Crick represents mainstream science, what they are “teaching” is that the question
of whether you would “cease to exist when you die” has not yet
been answered by mainstream science.