Hello,
Those who are interested in the nature of consciousness should read a little about what quantum mechanics tells us with regards to the nature of observation. Don't worry, no mathematics is involved, although that is certainly a fascinating topic in its own right. The belly of quantum weirdness is best described by Young's double slit experiment, and the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
In quantum theory, matter arises whenever a measurement is performed on a wavefunction, which is an indefinite state merely describing the probability of how the matter will be distributed once a measurement has been performed. The key word is "measurement", which mandates the inclusion of an "observer". Unlike classical physics, processes in quantum theory are utterly inseparable from you, the observer.
As we define our own experiences of the universe by the consciousness, I will define consciousness as "An agent which can process measurements, and can thus collapse wavefunctions"
This raises some tricky questions. Namely: If consciousness arises from matter, but matter arises from measurement via the consciousness, then we arrive at a curious paradox. So perhaps it is a fallacy to assume that consciousness arises from matter.
I might post my own interpretations of this later, but I'm not really one for debates... I much prefer giving others food for thought. Really, I just want to challenge the realist (science-y) assumption that consciousness is a material phenomena. And from that, raise questions about what can honestly be said about the "afterlife" from a realist standpoint.
As most people here are from the USA, I strongly encourage you to check out Hindu and Buddhist philosophy from the East. It's absolutely fascinating and tends to be far more introspective than Western religions when it comes to pondering the nature of reality and consciousness. Buddhism in particular welcomes Western science with open arms.
Other stuff:
There is some interesting research into accounts of reincarnation. I refer you to the work of
Dr. Ian Stevenson. Of course, it is up to you whether you consider his research valid or not. I am on the fence, personally.
There are fascinating accounts of people who are able to live normally in society, despite not possessing the majority of brain matter associated with higher functions (
such as the case of a mathematics student at Sheffield University). I guess it's not strictly relevant to the discussion, but it's an interesting tale so I thought I'd share it. Take from it what you will. : )