In fact, I just noticed upon re-reading the passage, that the author appears to be offering alternatives to the possibility that the patient suffered an NDE. In fact, in excellent critical-thinking mode, he precisely addressed the issues which are absolutely vital in determining what actual experience the woman may have had. Ian, you could learn a lot by addressing these issues yourself. You really ought to read some of this material sometimes.
Also, notice, Gentle Reader (if you have the patience to wade through the text) that while he often refers to a brain as a filter for divine signals, he rarely states this outright; rather, he simply says that observed information concerning the brain does not rule out the idea of divine signals... it might be this, it could also be that... in other words, lacking any clear evidence that this is true, the author is merely engaging in speculation of the sort which has neither proof nor disproof as of yet. It is, I admit, an intruiging idea, which only fails as regards modern science by the fact that no such external divine stimuli appears to exist or has been detected, as of yet; nor is there clearly any hard evidence that personality survives total death, nor of any other phenomena which would suggest this 'filter-brain' theory to be true. Still - lack of evidence is not the same as counter-evidence, so this theory does, in fact, have some small merit, so long as 'divine signals' are never fully disproven.
However, it also renders the argument irrelevant. The brain behaves as it does, whether it is filtering divine signals or not, and the observed scientific and medical evidence suggests simple cause-effect relationships between different sorts of brain activity. Adding in a signal-filter relationship does nothing to improve the description of brain activity; its only use or potential comes in the attempt to understand consciousness and to relate consciousness either to a) a material process or b) an external, 'spiritual' one. Obviously, the fundamental philosophy of each person determines, in part, which they are willing to accept. We observe, for example, that Ian colours all his theories and observations with his theist viewpoint; to him, the soul absolutely must exist, and as such, must be something beyond the mere confines of the physical as such. So, to Ian, qualia are inherently immaterial, as are thoughts, feelings, etc.
One can sympathise with this world-view to a degree - and, indeed, the intuitive part of me feels that such a world-view is ultimately warranted. But the materialistic and scientific evidence thus far is that all mental activity of any sort is entirely material in nature - including awareness and thought - and that all that needs be studied is the brain in greater detail. The more we learn of the brain, the fewer brain processes remain immaterial. Reductionism is slowly eliminating the immaterial mind, and only time will tell if it will reduce this to nothing, or if it will finally fail and have some immaterial thing to deal with.
... Seems I'm rambling. Well, I apologize - the medicines are really strong.
