Why would we need to do that?
Because those models say what PP claims he can do is completely impossible. The brain simply doesn't work like that.
If we see observations that contradict the models on a fundamental level, we need new models. Simple as that. You can't simply do the impossible and expect there not to be interest in that.
I suspect that medical journals will not be falling over themselves to revise their books on neuroscience based on Petro's personal claim made in an obscure forum.
Is that suspicion based on your realization that Petro's claims are unlikely and untenable? If so that seems inconsistent with your pledge to approach them with an open mind.
If not, then what is the source of your suspicion?
What difference does it make to you?
I'm a student of why people believe things that are obviously false. I'm not saying you believe Petro, but
Petro believes Petro, and maybe he's more amenable to inquiry from you. Clearly he views the rest of us skeptics as incorrigible ideologues wedded to the idea of a completely mundane universe.
I just think it'll be interesting if you can get him to answer some probative questions. It's up to you, best of luck.