Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

I think, either my friend (con) is misunderstanding my arguments or trying to misinterpret them in order to mislead the readers. The basic argument of my friend has been that Mind is a part of brain and being a part it can't control the whole. But I had rejected the contention of my friend that Mind is a part of the Brain in the beginning itself. I don't know how he has misconstrued that I have conceded his claim that Mind is a part of the Brain. In this round I will try to clear all the miss-interpretations about the pro case. As I have already mentioned in my earlier argument that research in the field of "Cognitive Neurology" suggests that there are "causal correlations" between the mind and the brain. For that to be true one of the following propositions has to be true: - A)Mind controls the brain and its neural activity B)The brain controls the Mind and conscious experience Since the above propositions are mutually exclusive only one of the propositions can be true. In other words for "causal correlations" to exist between the mind and the brain either ‘A' or ‘B' have to be true. If one of them is proved false the other becomes true automatically. So far, my friend (con), even after having sufficient opportunity, has failed to either disprove ‘A' or prove ‘B'. Now, it's my turn, and in this round I will try to disprove the proposition ‘B' and by doing so my original proposition which is ‘A' will be automatically proved true, for "causal correlations" between the mind and the brain to exist. To disprove ‘B', that is brain controls mind and conscious experience, I will now provide evidence that Mind can do without the brain. To support my claim 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 describe the study and conclusions in detail: http://www.towardthelight.org... The simple conclusion that I can arrive at from the above study is that if the mind and conscious experience can survive "brain-death" it directly implies that mind does not need the brain at least for consciousness experience. The logical corollary that follows is that mind can exist without the brain and is therefore is not a part of the brain, as contended by my friend. Thus having disproved the proposition ‘B' – brain controls mind and conscious experience, I strongly contend that proposition ‘A' has to be true for "causal correlation" between mind and brain to exist. To simplify my friend's task I want clarify what he has to do to defend his case. Either he has to disprove the evidence that I have provided about the survival of mind after "brain-death" or he has to disprove that there are "causal correlations" between mind and brain, which again will be against his basic argument that the mind is a part of the brain.