From my recent research on the subject of terminal lucidity, terminal lucidity (in regards to brain damaged, but not brain dead, people becoming lucid hours to days before dying) is something which sometimes really happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_lucidity says the following regarding possible natural explanations.
"According to Macleod (2009)[13]
in his observations, explanative causes could not be found for the
variety of cases, but it was suggested that due to the modern
pharmacology in terminal cases, the condition may be less common today.[4] A recent proposed mechanism includes a non-tested hypothesis of neuromodulation, according to which near-death discharges of neurotransmitters and corticotropin-releasing peptides act upon preserved circuits of the medial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, promoting memory retrieval and mental clarity.[14]"
On page 5 of this topic thread Sea Breeze quotes https://island.lk/lucidity-before-death-brain-releasing-consciousness/ when Sea Breeze said the following. "There are a number of cases reported where patients who
were dying of malignant tumours that destroyed almost the entirety of
the brain, confirmed by radiological investigations like CT scans and
MRI, waking up and discussing their lives and imminent death, lucidly". Sea Breeze then alludes that such facts are a poor fit to a materialist view where consciousness is said to be ONLY a product of physical brain function. [I get the impression that Sea Breeze alludes such since he said the following."Do these facts better fit a materialist view where consciousness is said to be ONLY a product of physical brain function? Or, do they better fit a biblical view where consciousness is said to be separate from the body, especially at death?"]
The article says that Dr Greyson makes use of the following factor. "Complex consciousness with minimal brain; he describes cases of very
high IQ students in High School or University with hardly any brain.
Only post-mortem examinations would reveal whether they had functioning
brain tissue elsewhere." The article says that
Dr Greyson considers such "... to support the concept of consciousness without the brain ...." While I think that there are people with complex consciousness despite having a minimal brain (I will state my reason for believing such later in this post) I don't think that excludes a a possible naturalistic explanation for such (I will state my reason for believing such later in this post).
In a previous post of mine I mentioned that https://www.newsweek.com/near-death-experiences-out-body-phenomenon-study-1757602 said the following.
' "What seems to be happening as a person is dying, their brain is
shutting down and in this process disinhibition, braking systems [in the
brain] are being removed because they are no longer relevant," said
Parnia, referencing how people can only access a small part of their
brain's consciousness at one time.
"This disinhibition seems to
give access to parts of the brain become activated and seeing spikes in
EEG activity and gives access to dimensions of reality they otherwise
did not have access to, including full consciousness." '
While Dr. Sam Parnia believes/thinks such supports the idea of the human consciousness having no need for the human brain, I interpret the matter as being a clue for a naturalistic mechanism for terminal lucidity.
I previously learned from scientific sources that our subconscious mind has access to, and processes, far more information than our conscious mind is aware of us. Our subconscious mind receives and processes vast amounts of information, and usually only presents a small percentage of that information (and other times only the conclusions made based upon that information) to our conscious mind. If we humans could tap much more into that enormous amount of information which our subconscious mind has, then our conscious mind would be far more powerful than it normally it. [But, if we tapped into a tremendous amount of it at the same time, our conscious mind would likely become overwhelmed.] Along these lines, last night on a PBS television show in my local area there was an episode of a four-part science program called "Hacking Your Mind" and some of what it said related to this. It even included a segment about "blind sight". The existence of blind sight is very fascinating. The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight defines blind sight as follows.
"Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see due to lesions in the primary visual cortex, also known as the striate cortex or Brodmann Area 17.[1]
... Patients with blindsight have damage to the system that produces visual perception (the visual cortex of the brain and some of the nerve fibers that bring information to it from the eyes) rather than to the underlying brain system controlling eye movements.[12] "
Here is the naturalistic idea I obtained to explain terminal lucidity. "... as a person is dying, their brain is
shutting down and in this process disinhibition, braking systems [in the
brain] are being removed ...." That then gives the person "access to parts of the brain" that the person hadn't had conscious access to for a very long time.
But you may be wondering how could a person have a complex consciousness with minimal brain - even if the brain is severely damaged from malignant tumors, or if the brain's structure is severely impaired (mentally retarded) due to a congenital defect during its development? Well I learned many years. from a science show on television, that some people can function well (including thinking very consciously) despite having the vast majority of their brain tissue!
In the science show (probably on PBS) I watched it was pointed out (and even shown in the video) that when the brain of a particular female was imaged, it was seen that her brain was hollow! She had hardly any brain left; the only part she had left was close to her inner side of her skull. Yet she functioned normally during her daily tasks! The scientist(s) concluded that her brain remapped itself to compensate for the massive damage and loss of brain tissue. I was astonished to learn such. I watched that science show a great many of years ago, probably long before I became an atheist. Yet I did not conclude (nor the scientist in the show) that the female's capability under such circumstances meant her mind was that of a spirit soul which had no need for the brain to create and maintain consciousness.
This suggests to me that under the right circumstances people only need a small percentage of their brain tissue to function adequately, provided the brain is wired/mapped in a highly beneficial way.
From ore recent science show I learned that crows and other birds, despite having a very tiny brain, can make and use tools! I say a video in the show in which a crow did both of those things, without the bird being trained to do such? That further supports the idea that even a small brain, a minimal brain, is capable to creating consciousness.
A dew days ago I learn certain facts about the extinct species of human called Homo naledi. That specie had a small cranial capacity (of 465–610 cm3) of only about one third of that our species, yet science articles from December 2022 say it was discovered they used fire and cooked (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi and see the posts made by truth_be_known and by Earnest located at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5068233325936640/early-hominem-neanderthals-evolution?page=5 for documentation)! https://news.wisc.edu/homo-naledi-had-a-tiny-brain-but-it-looked-a-lot-like-ours/ says the following about Homo naledi.
'... a new study published Monday (May 14, 2018) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.... shows that though its brain was small
like those of apes and our more distant human ancestors, such as Australopithecus sediba, Homo naledi’s brain shared structural features (grooves and folds) decidedly more like humans.
“Maybe brain size isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” says one of the study’s corresponding authors, John Hawks,
a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “It opens
the door for us to say that maybe they were more capable than we might
assume; maybe it isn’t just (brain) size.”
Notice that their brains were thus about the size of the Australopithicenes and of modern-day non-human apes yet they had enough consciousness to make and use fire and to cook! The earlier mentioned Wikipedia article about Homo naledi says that despite their small cranial size (and hence small brain size) that "Nonetheless, H. naledi brain anatomy seems to have been similar to contemporary Homo, which could indicate comparable cognitive complexity." That also further supports the idea that even a small brain, a minimal brain, is capable to creating consciousness.
During part of the past 7 days or so I have been reading about Homo floresiensis. See https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5675982848524288/evidence-human-evolution-keeps-getting-stronger-stronger?page=5 where I point out the following. "... scientist Morwood says
Homo floresiensis made stone tools, used fire, hunted Stegodon and
Komodo dragons, and the front of its skull looked very human except that
its forehead (of specimen LB1) is very short, and that the cranial
capacity inside the skull was only 380 cc (for specimen LB1)." Note that brain of Homo floresiensis was even smaller than that of Homo naledi and that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis says the brain size of the LB1 specimen of Homo floresiensis was in "... the range of chimpanzees or the extinct australopithecines.[3][42] " The Wikiepedia article also says the following.
"Smaller size does not appear to have affected mental faculties, as Brodmann area 10 on the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with cognition, is about the same size as that of modern humans.[42] H. floresiensis is also associated with evidence for advanced behaviours, such as the use of fire, butchering, and stone tool manufacturing.[4][6] "
That even further supports the idea that even a small brain, a minimal brain, is capable to creating consciousness.
As a result of the above evidence and analysis, I see no need to invoke a supernaturalistic explanation (such as spirit souls) to explain terminal lucidity in humans with minimal intact brain tissue.
