Mind was the last thing to come into existence

Responding to my opponent's points: 1) Maybe you didn't read r3 para1 ss4? Furthermore, just because a mind can survive brain-death, this is only true if the brain is somehow resurrected. You have not proven that the mind is apart from the brain. 2) When you find an exact correlation between electric charges and thoughts, this is very strong evidence that the two are the same. Therefore the mind IS these charges and not some higher-up magic fairyland as my opponent appears to assert. Neural activity is not dependent on mental activity, but rather interdependent. Without the charges there is no mind. Therefore mind and body are one. Therefore the mind depends on the body. 3) That's not much of a clarification. When one is in a coma one is not conscious because one cannot respond to observed phenomena, as required by my definition. When sleeping one is conscious because one can respond to observed phenomena, for instance, if I shake a sleeping person they respond by waking. When awake it is the same. So again, yes it is a binary state. 4) My will to success is not a decision I made. I didn't wake up one morning and think "I'm going to WIN for the rest of my life." No - all people want to win, to be successful and so forth. This is because it is an instinct that we have no control over. We can only suppress it if there is a stronger instinct preventing us, such as fear. Could you therefore please explain how the no-free-will theory is self-contradictory? 5) The number of websites is not a proof of the theory, it is proof the theory is not "mine" or "self-propounded." I was showing your ignorance of a well-established theory. It's not an appeal to uncertainty, it's an appeal to authority (there IS a difference). 6) It clearly is an established theory. I had two sources that prove it, and you called it the "current understanding" in round one! When we have a dream in a state we do not expect to have a dream, this is a dream we are highly likely to remember. So 12% is actually very low, especially considering any old tramp off the street could just waltz into van Lommel's office and claim to have had an NDE - no checking of medical records was done - and the NDEs were all recorded TWO YEARS after the event, so patients with life-changes as a result may have "imagined" a vision of some sort. So here would be a more accurate scientific assessment: after an NDE, go up to the hospital bed and ask the patient if they saw anything while dead. Then ask the doctor what drugs the patient was taking. When you have a good sample, test first if it could possibly be due to medical drugs. If this is ruled out, test second whether something might be actually happening. General notes: 1) I raised 19 points in the last round and only got a response to six. About two thirds of all my points in this debate have been ignored by my opponent. Clearly my opponent does not have the answers. 2) Most worryingly, my opponent did not clarify his model as asked, so I can only presume that my opponent himself doesn't know what he's arguing for. 3) My opponent still needs to provide a principle basis of why the view held by a clear majority of scientists and skeptics is wrong. So far this has been a disappointing debate. I've tried to engage with the issues, but my opponent keeps ignoring them. My opponent even refuses to tell us what he contends. Every one of the legitimate arguments my opponent makes has been an appeal to uncertainty in one form or another, every one of his rebuttals has been ignorant of something I've said already. What more must I do to convince you? I've provided an argument, you've provided nothing for four long rounds! Mind clearly comes after body, and that is what I am most proud to propose.