How would you respond to these rebuttals to Terminal Lucidity?

I've already acknowledged and admitted that I'm probably annoying people here by seeking reassurance. I apologise for that. I understand the flaws of materialism, primarily its inability to adequately explain all phenomena (such as this, though that's why these comments also had me worried) surrounding consciousness. But my point is that I am not confident enough myself just to keep reminding myself of that. I NEED to respond to these criticisms. If I don't, I get impatient. I'm not good with that.

I've already acknowledged and admitted that I'm probably annoying people here by seeking reassurance. I apologise for that. I understand the flaws of materialism, primarily its inability to adequately explain all phenomena (such as this, though that's why these comments also had me worried) surrounding consciousness. But my point is that I am not confident enough myself just to keep reminding myself of that. I NEED to respond to these criticisms. If I don't, I get impatient. I'm not good with that.

If you're reading this post you should be adding the disclaimer to your threads.

But if you really are a skeptic just come clean and post your threads in the appropriate forum.

I'd say the content and titles of these various threads by OmniVersalNexus certainly qualify as scepticism. At least in terms of the way this forum is organised, they belong in the Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions forum. Any debate over the subtler nuances should take place there (if at all).

• "Something is clearly happening in the brain in response to the degradation that allows an adrenaline-like reaction to kick in."
  

I'm with Sci, in the need for any back and forth with poorly stated arguments.  TL is an observed state that is consistent, but rarely repeatable.  Lucidity is a measurable set of responsive skills about the inner mental state of a person.  There are many records of the event, but they are in a poor-condition for research.  Still; it is a repetitive observed fact.

A reaction or signal in the brain - causing a subsequent specific chemical reaction - has a prior chemical state to observe and report as the start of the signal.  The above sounds pretend to me, without some organic-chem references ,as to this prior electro-chemical event.  The something that is happening exists as information processing by the mind.  - in my humble worldview.

Minds change brain chemistry.

[Laird]

I'd say the content and titles of these various threads by OmniVersalNexus certainly qualify as scepticism. At least in terms of the way this forum is organised, they belong in the Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions forum. Any debate over the subtler nuances should take place there (if at all).

Noted. I've moved them there.

I've already acknowledged and admitted that I'm probably annoying people here by seeking reassurance. I apologise for that. I understand the flaws of materialism, primarily its inability to adequately explain all phenomena (such as this, though that's why these comments also had me worried) surrounding consciousness. But my point is that I am not confident enough myself just to keep reminding myself of that. I NEED to respond to these criticisms. If I don't, I get impatient. I'm not good with that.

For the time being and for the sake of argument taking your entire output on this forum seriously, I think you should carefully examine this compulsion and what must be the reasons for it, and whether it makes any sense to continue this enterprise.

In this example, where terminal lucidity is claimed to be explained in materialistic ways, this doesn't really matter - it's irrelevant, because other areas of reality supervene. A supervening cause is a powerful something that operates independently of and prior to anything else, and thereby becomes the proximate cause. It is a fact that deeply embedded intertwinings of neural structures and consciousness are predicted both by mind=brain materialism and by mind/=brain concepts. And most importantly, it is a fact that there is the existence of many very strong evidential and logical reasons why materialistic neural causes can't possibly account for consciousness. These reasons break down into several categories of overwhelming physical empirical evidence, and a number of deadly philosophical arguments grounded in the laws of logic. These have already been covered in detail many times in this forum.

If you had really absorbed this information, at least your rational mind should have abandoned this obsession. Since you quite evidently haven't, your trouble must logically be that you haven't taken the time and trouble to really absorb the information, and/or that the obsession comes from some deep compulsion to torture yourself with an irrational and extreme tendency to doubt, some deep level that is not accessible to your logical rational mind. If the former, you should take the time and trouble to study and absorb the evidence and arguments. If the latter, you will never be able to really convince yourself, so you should move on and quit wasting energy - learn to live with doubt. In either case, pursuing the will-of-the-wisp dream of somehow answering every materialist mind=brain "explanation" and neuroscience research paper regardless of implausibility should be abandoned, since it will be endless and exhausting.