Keith mentions psychical researchers Gardner Murphy, Douglas Stokes, C. D. Broad, and John Beloff who agree with Keith Augustine that neuroscience has proven the production theory. The problem is that appears not to be true. Why? the above four psychical researchers contented that Wilder Penfield's work gave supportable evidence for the production theory however Wilder Penfield never endorsed this theory. Nor did he think that this was the best explanation for his data. Wilder Penfield started out an materialist until he started doing work with epileptic patients. keith appeals to authority by pointed out four psychical researchers who believed that the best explanation was that consciousness is produced by the brain. The above misinterpretation of Wilder Penfield's work by these four psychical researchers should put some doubt on their view that consciousness is generated by brain processes.
Dr. Wilder Penfields writes
For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements. Because it seems to me certain that it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain, and because it seems to me that the mind develops and matures independently throughout an individual's life as though it were a continuing element, and because a computer (which the brain is) must be programmed and operated by an agency capable of independent understanding, I am forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be understood on the basis of two elements.
Keith also says
Similarly, I would say that "the productive hypothesis" is the best explanation of the neuroscientific facts, which are indeed facts, and those other parapsychological things you might appeal to--OBEs, NDEs, CORT (cases of reincarnation type), mediumistic productions, apparitions--have nothing to do with disembodied existence, and thus the mind-brain relation, but concern different things: in some cases, perceptual tricks, in others, fraud or subconscious invention, and so on. (This is essentially what philosophers of mind take them to be, else they would look into such phenomena to learn about the mind-body relation. They don't look there because they don't believe such experiences tell us anything about the mind-body relation at all.)
You notice Keith doesn't mentioned at least some of these philosophers?.
Here's an excellent paper called " Can Consciousness survive the destruction of the brain?".
Keith also says
If we had decisive evidence of the supernatural, I'd believe in it as much as I believe that the Sun is the center of the solar system. It's just that we don't have such evidence. That's why I am a naturalist--because the only *knowledge* we have of the world, knowledge gleaned from biology, or psychology, or geology, or what have you, is knowledge of natural things. It didn't have to be that way; astronomy could have revealed that life emerged within a second after the Big Bang. That would be incredibly difficult to account for naturalistically, if it could be done at all. But this is not the world revealed to us by science. It is science that has found only natural causes where supernatural ones were once imagined to exist. That's essentially where we are today: there are many known natural causes, many believed-in but no known supernatural causes, and ambiguous causes that may or may not be natural. But among the known causes, there are only natural ones. There's not a single indisputable supernatural thing in existence. That's possible if naturalism is false--but not likely. That's why I accept naturalism.
Keith fails to understand that dualism itself doesn't argue against of the reality of matter and energy. It's very obvious that both exist, and those two are both natural. The problem i think is our conceptions of both the supernatural and the natural as they are commonly adhered to be.