How would you respond to these rebuttals to Terminal Lucidity?

I found these on a Reddit debate-an-atheist post from a year ago, where the OP was arguing that the mind is not a product of the brain. Most comments just accused him of not providing any evidence of this, but he does briefly explain Terminal Lucidity. The comments that responded to him (that weren't outright attacking him) included some of these criticisms:

• "It just shows that we don't fully understand the brain yet and there might be a brain-based mechanism for it."
  
• "Terminal Lucidity isn't exclusive to a soul/the mind. Data can sometimes remain even after the means to access it is damaged. We have examples of biological functions being subconsciously temporarily disabled or suppressed to prevent damage. It's not a stretch to say that automatic processes inhibit memory recall to prevent further damage to the brain, and no longer do so when further damage to the brain is academic."
  
• "The brain damage that affected these people is only destroying the pathways that allow memory to be accessed."
  
• "It's just a case of neuroplasticity."
  
• "Something is clearly happening in the brain in response to the degradation that allows an adrenaline-like reaction to kick in."
  
• "Does the level of recovery not depend upon the state of the brain, implying that it's the brain at work and not the mind?"
  

I would like to point out that some of these commenters are the same people who claimed that "veridical NDEs have been mostly debunked" (which, as we know, is very much false-the OP even recommended The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences for them to read but they just ignored him, and gave no explanation as to how they've been 'debunked') and that 'there have been no studies or observations supporting consciousness being beyond the brain' (once again ignoring things like veridical NDEs and the Placebo Effect).These commenters also do not seem to be aware of the Filter Theory or Salt/Water Theory, demanding he give a model that is falsifiable.

Here are my issues with their comments that I was able to come up with:

• Comparing the brain to a computer storing data is regarded by many neuroscientists and computer scientists today as a reductionist, inaccurate false equivalency.
  
• It isn't necessarily just memory. It's also a person's personality, awareness, and everything that composes their consciousness which is able to return, sometimes for up to several days on end. That's why it's been found to occur in patients suffering from all sorts of mental diseases.
  
• To what extent is neuroplasticity capable of triggering a return to lucidity and consciousness in patients suffering from such extreme diseases? Is neuroplasticity not only triggered by external stimuli, and hasn't it only been shown to effect more minor brain injuries (not diseases, big difference)?
  
• TL has been reported to affect patients with physical mental disorders such as tumours and Alzheimer's as well.
  
• Assuming there will be a brain-based mechanism is making the 'materialism of the gaps' argument, is it not? If those who have studied terminal lucidity extensively have been unable to think of a special mechanism so far, then I find it hard to believe we'll find one at some point.
  

I also found this study that says plasticity in the brain is lower for patients suffering from Alzheimer's: https://www.drugtargetreview.com/news/26...ame%20age.

The criticism based on the phenomenon of neuroplasticity probably has the most weight to it. Could it possibly also apply to savant syndrome and cases of high-functioning consciousness despite lack of significant portions of the brain? What do you think? How would you refute these criticisms?

Disclaimer:
As noted here there's a good reason to reject this is proof materialism/physicalism is true, given these skeptical parties that continue to doubt the physicalist/materialist faith.

Additionally, whatever is shown by parapsychology or neuroscience, here are four good reasons to reject the religion of physicalism/materialism.

Why would you take this neuroplasticity argument seriously?

It seems laughable even from a materialist standpoint. Seems like you spend a lot of time looking for pseudo-skeptical arguments to post here, not enough time actually reading the real literature on these subjects...

I’ll respond to the neuroplasticity criticism since I think that’s a genuine one. And to make clear this is just me trying to think logically, I’m no plasticity expert. The reason why I think TL can’t just be explained with it is fairly simple, because of how sudden it occurs. And by that I mean, you’d think that if TL was just because of plasticity, shouldn’t it be more of a gradual return style phenomenon, as the brain rewires itself. The brain isn’t a computer, you can’t just replace a piece of it with a new one and everything starts working perfectly again. Also, I know the brain is powerful, but why would it only be this powerful occasionally?

Related, but I think you’d be a lot better off just avoiding those areas of Reddit if ur gonna keep going on them. As someone who also stresses out seeing such arguments (seeing this post bothered me for awhile until really thinking about it), you’ll be a lot better off for it. I’d say focus on the actual researchers and their work as opposed to whatever someone on Reddit is saying about it. And like Sci suggested in a different thread, work on personal experiences. It’s why I’ve been working on trying to have OBEs and have recently started work to have lucid dreams, to get more direct experience.

I apologize Silver for stressing you out, but at least you agree it's a legitimate criticism. I also haven't seen much evidence that neuroplasticity is capable of dealing with mental diseases associated with terminal lucidity. 

As for savant syndrome, the idea was feedback loops in the brain, and the whole rewiring itself process, resulting in rapid acquisition of these skills. After all, neuroplasticity takes place after brain injuries or trauma, but then again, I don't think every case can be explained away as just neuroplasticity. 

However, what do you make specifically of the claim:

We have examples of biological functions being subconsciously temporarily disabled or suppressed to prevent damage. It's not a stretch to say that automatic processes inhibit memory recall to prevent further damage to the brain, and no longer do so when further damage to the brain is academic

What does that even mean? When has the brain ever displayed the capacity to do something like that in a dying or critical state? And why doesn't this happen to everyone who has these mental afflictions as well? I'm confused by that one...


Do you really think we'll somehow discover the brain will have the ability to do this? Isn't this the same logic materialists always use when there's something that doesn't fit their flawed model of the mind-brain relationship?

I'd like to know what makes it a legitimate criticism.

As Silver notes, just looking at neuroplasticity research and the time it takes would render the explanation a non-starter. 

To even suggest instaneous neuroplasticity is to invalidate the usual ideas materialists have about the mind. It seems to suggest some endogenous field storing the data at minimum.

You really need to put effort into reading the source material on the brain, on philosophy of mind, and so on. Maybe stop running around looking for skeptical arguments until you do.

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

He’s definitely not a skeptic Sci. The whole reason I know about this forum is cuz of a post he made on Reddit saying how this was a good source of info. I think he just overreacts to some of the skeptic arguments so he brings them here to get other people’s thoughts on it to see if it is legitimate.

And Omni, yeah that argument doesn’t make any sense. I really don’t understand the logic that further brain damage results in memory and personality returning, especially when the materialist view is that memory is stored in the brain. Either damage to the brain should only result in deficiency or the brain is so powerful it can bounce back from anything. It can’t be both. It seems like the brain is only allowed to be this powerful when it’s needed to explain something that doesn’t fit the normal materialist model.

Yay! My post worked! I'm glad someone saw it and paid attention. What did you think of the other stuff I posted? It's a little brash but yeah. 

I've been compared to a flat-earther and told I'm a woo-believer. I've been told I'm an idiot. I've had whole arguments in old Reddit threads over why we should trust people like Brian Josephson over James Randi. It's all on my Reddit profile. I'm not a pseudo/anti-skeptic. Trust me.

It’s been awhile so I don’t fully remember. Some of the stuff I was already aware of, other stuff I wasn’t (like Mark Mahin’s blogs).

Eh I think you guys are the same person.

Sorry.

I’m really not him. I don’t really get why we’d be the same person. What’d the point of bringing up those skeptical articles and then have a separate account to be against it? Plus I’m more a lurker anyway, the only reason I’ve been responding recently is cuz the stuff being posted has bothered me (even after logically I realized they didn’t make sense) so I’ve responded to calm down. I get that ur getting annoyed with him but I don’t think it’s fair to rope me into that