Mind has a material basis

In the third round I will try to answer the questions put forth by my opponent regarding my proposition of existence of a "brainless mind" at seriatim. Firstly, I will refer to a study done by Dr. Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist from Netherlands, who studied a group of patients who had suffered cardiac arrests and who were successfully revived. He found that 62 patients (18%) had a Near-Death Experience (NDE), of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Many of the subjects had "NO NEURAL ACTIVITY" in the brain as understood from a flat-EEG. Among other symptoms they had fixed and dilated pupil sufficient to describe the subject "brain-dead" or "clinically dead". Such "experiences" encountered by people declared "clinically dead" or "brain dead" suggest that the mind can survive "brain-death". Given bellow is a link to articles by Dr. van Lommel, which describes the study and conclusions in detail: http://www.towardthelight.org... The above also answers my opponents query for inductive evidence and what he said about the "problem of causation". Secondly, my opponent has raised the question why the mind cannot use another person's brain. In reply to that I would state that I don't think that is impossible. But for that to be possible we first need to have a technology for successful brain transplant. Unless a brain transplant is done there is no evidence to prove that a person's mind cannot use another person's brain. Further to that I would like to state that there are higher-levels of consciousness than ordinary waking state. Sean O' Nuallain in his book "Zero-Power and Selflessness", in which he has done studies on the meditating mind, has stated that meditators often describe selfless states as well as higher states of consciousness than ordinary waking state. My opponent can reject that on the ground that these are subjective experiences and cannot be treated as empirical proof of existence of such states of consciousness. But I want to make it clear that in absence of any flawless method to measure consciousness objectively, we are not left with any option but to rely on subjective experience. Thirdly my opponent has stated, "If our brains did not give us the capacity to learn and think they would have to be many times larger for us to be able to perform the same number of functions." I am not able to comprehend what he means by that and would request him to please elaborate that point and also how he came to that conclusion. Lastly, I would state that animal brains should not be considered "mindless". Using my opponent's definition of mind, mind should be responsible for feelings, emotions and thought not for reasoning or intelligence. We can't state with certainty that animals don't have feelings or that they don't emote in any manner or that any type of thought process is not going on in there minds. Thoughts, feelings, emotions are all subjective experiences and can felt only by the first person; others will have to rely on the first person's description. For example, one can't understand how it feels to be in love unless one falls in love. I think I have given a description of how brainless mind can exist even after "brain" death. Now, it is over to my opponent to describe a mindless "brain" live and functioning.