sharanam:

Despite my doubts, neurology and neuroscience do not appear to profoundly contradict Buddhist thought. Neuroscience tells us the thing we take as our unified mind is an illusion, that our mind is not unified and can barely be said to “exist” at all. Our feeling of unity and control is a post-hoc confabulation and is easily fractured into separate parts. As revealed by scientific inquiry, what we call a mind (or a self, or a soul) is actually something that changes so much and is so uncertain that our pre-scientific language struggles to find meaning.

Buddhists say pretty much the same thing. They believe in an impermanent and illusory self made of shifting parts. They’ve even come up with language to address the problem between perception and belief. Their word for self is anatta, which is usually translated as ‘non self.’  One might try to refer to the self, but the word cleverly reminds one’s self that there is no such thing.

―David Weisman

I’m of course totally interested in this discussion. Since the author points to the obvious fallacy and/or disconnect with science in terms of Buddhism’s belief in reincarnation I will point you to some alternative views on rebirth here.

Also, I would like to add that I find nothing surprising in that so much of Buddhist thought jibes with modern neuro- and cognitive science since it’s whole m.o. is observation of the mind. It’s not a belief system, it’s a science (and spirituality) of the mind, through direct experience of one’s own consciousness.

  interesting.