Though when he's making statements about the mind and how it could define what 'death' means in a clinical sense, then nonsense like "The music seemed to transcend the spatial limitations of matter" which is contradicted by all existing evidence, reduces my respect for him on that topic and makes me nervous about his scientific/critical thinking in general.
If they can't get that right why would I think they have a good idea about something where there's less evidence that's even more controversial?
> he no longer thought it possible that all conscious experience, particularly one’s perception of beauty, could be a “mere electrophysiological epiphenomenon,”
https://lesswrong.com/lw/or/joy_in_the_merely_real/
Though for the music one the “transcend spatial limitations of matter” is the part I take issue with. It’s unclear what it even means, but seems to imply some supernatural specialness.
Same is true of Shewmon. It calls into question his evaluation of the subject when he's previously demonstrated questionable judgement in a similar - related - matter.
Not that it discredits the work itself mind you - if it's good, it's good - but right now the work seems mostly opinion based so calling into question is biases reaching conclusions on this subject is not only not bigoted and quite valid it is required to have an intellectual rigor.
Again, the work may stand by itself. That's not demonstrated yet however.
Disregarding his scientific opinion because he had a conversion experience in college is rather bigoted, don't you think?