Well, this question relates to the book "Island" that is referred here. In particular the paragraph on page 96. The paragraph is as follows.
One of the first stumbling blocks in understanding Buddhism is the teaching on anattæ, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn’t fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of karma and rebirth: If there’s no self, what experiences the results of karma and takes rebirth?
Its a natural observation. After all when someone pinches the skin you get hurt. Then you assume the skin must belong to you. You then assume the self is reborn.
I think that matter must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.
- Albert Einstein
Our skin is not different to the moon Albert Einstein refers to here. They are both matter. At Quantum level the moon, the skin, indeed all matter has a separate reality
The moon as well as ones own skin only comes into being when observed. Einstein goes onto say its very "spooky".
The view of "self" is quite intriguing at Quantum level. For example the pinch event
is constructed by 3 out of the 6 consciousness.
- When the eye-consciousness begins to observe - the skin texture, shape and colour comes into being.
- When the body-consciousness begins to observe - it mimics a touch feeling.
- When the mind-consciousness begins to observe - it mimics a self context connecting the external event to the skin.
Thus the Wiññāṇa takes a light wave pattern and constructs a false view of self. The view of self simply does not exist when the 6-consciousness are not active.
So matter of self is not reborn. The consciousness that pre-existed simply transfers to a new state.
The book interprets Buddha's words incorrectly. These are positions most Buddhists take very early in their Buddhist lives. Although after a few Eureka moments the gist of the meaning of what Buddha said becomes clear.
The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn’t have inferences drawn from them, and those who don’t draw inferences from those that should. These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha’s teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anattæ doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored.