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?