It's not confirming an assumption, it's adding evidence to support a hypothesis. The brain is a producer of consciousness, that has been confirmed at every turn pretty much, .
Why? Does he include some evidence of other dimensions in that particular book?
As an aside, I saw a reference to an interesting experiment concerning NDEs. At some hospital that must do surgeries or other high-risk procedures they mounted a laptop fairly close to the ceiling of the hospital room, opened flat but with the screen facing up so that people on the floor can't see what's on the screen. The screen is constantly playing an animation of some sort, the idea being that since NDEs so frequently involve the viewing of the body from above that if it's really a soul or something they should be able to see the animation and say what it is. I don't know much more about it, but it would be something if someone could actually describe the animation.
You still are failing to see that the evidence you are pointing at also and adequately supports the other hypothesis as well. It truly is confirmation bias that you can't seem to shake. I see no construction of strawmen. Anything that supports both the brain as a producer of consciousness and also a receiver of it, you are going to choose the former because that is your bias. I would challenge you to articulate a single peice of evidence that does not support both conclusions. No dodging the question now by playing burden of proof games and assuming the physicalist position is the status quo.
You are also philibustering me on figures of speach. There is plenty work being done to show that there are other dimensions... Yes they are inconclusive at the moment, but its pretty consistent with human experience through out time, and only a few models at the moment do not have extra dinentions. The most noteable ones do including string theory. I have also explained to you before that it is quite clear that there is DEFINANTLY a non-physical ( by how we define physical with particles and space time) reality underlining this one.
You are completely wrong... There is volumes of evidence supporting the spiritual interpretation of NDEs, and as I have shown you the the standard arguments for the dying brain hypothesis does not hold up to scrutiny because of severe logical flaws. I have heard of that experiment, and I'm interested, but I heard it was being done with letters or numbers I think it's apart of the aware study. But I ask you, why would you accept that kind of evidence and not evidences where the experiencer hears specific conversations and identify very specific details of tools confirmed by trained surgeons?
If i said Jung had proof would you read it?
No. But he lays out an excellent discussion of how modern empiricism and 'averaging' has devalued the individual which is truely the carrier of reality. You will see how it relates if you read it.