This gets to what I think is the whole fallacy of this line of thinking. Alex once again mentions in the intro that this work “falsifies mind equals brain”. I think this is not the case at all.
The fact that someone meditates and it changes the physical brain is completely unremarkable to me and more importantly is unremarkable to a dyed-in-the wool materialist.
As I've said in an earlier post- when a weightlifter repeatedly lifts focusing on particular muscle groups, it results in a bodily change. No surprise to anyone.
.
I do agree that this whole re-wiring of the brain issue isn't conclusive. However, part of the problem is that materialists (believers that only the material world exists) take a hell of a lot for granted! Machines that we make will only change their structure in very pre-planned ways. For example, your computer will bypass any sectors of your hard disk that it finds to be defective. Now consider the OCD issue. A person with untreated OCD presumably simply continues with their problem, so the ability to re-wire this part of the brain surely can't have arisen by natural selection, because it can only be activated using a specific therapy, and therapists haven't been around long enough to influence our evolution! If an alien came along and unscrewed one of the wheels of a Mars rover, it wouldn't deploy another one because its designers didn't expect this to happen!
So I think the fact that OCD can be cured this way is pretty remarkable.
There really isn't such a thing as proof in science (only in maths) but I can tell you a number of reasons that make me pretty certain that there has to be some sort of non-material world.
1) Science seems really stuck at explaining consciousness. Most attempts confuse consciousness with computation, but the difference is obvious - if you are conscious you don't only think things out, you also have experiences. You tell me how physical interactions between bits of matter can generate conscious awareness. It may be useful to imagine actually making a conscious machine, to understand the issues.
2) I think the NDE phenomenon is remarkable. Not only is it very hard to explain how a brain starved of oxygen can hallucinate a complex experience and remember it, it is also hard to explain how someone lying on a hospital bed (and in a coma!) actually views the whole scene from the ceiling. Next time you go to the dentist, ask yourself how much of the activity in the room is visible to you while you are being treated! Furthermore, some people have NDE's when they didn't know they were in danger (or are kids that don't understand death), so why do they hallucinate a death-related drama.
3) There are some really weird phenomena associated with consciousness - for example autistic savants. These extraordinary people are severely mentally handicapped except for one talent area, where they seem to access information that they have never been taught (and could never have understood anyway).
4) I think there is a substantial number of experiments that provide evidence for ψ under controlled conditions. Conventional science doesn't so much explain these phenomena, as shuffle them out of site. Of course, there are people such as Brian Josephson, who got the Nobel Prize for physics, who takes ψ very seriously, but they are the exceptions.
David