Mind was the last thing to come into existence

Responding to question "what is the minimal set of neural activity that is responsible for consciousness?": 1. You never asked this in round 2, there was no tactful avoidance 2. Even if I admit one can have consciousness without neural activity, the argument is still an appeal to uncertainty 3. The fact that the brain has electrical charges that are dependent on mental activity constitutes pretty strong evidence the mind is dependent on the body. 4. Given that the mind is dependent on the body, in order to be conscious, one needs to have significant enough neural activity in order to respond to external phenomena. Dealing with higher consciousness: 1. My opponent again ignores all my points. 2. I have already said the "subjective experience" of these men was not, in all probability, an experience but a lie. 3. Personally I'm a bit confused as to what exactly makes one consscious object more conscious than another. Consciousness is a state - it is either true or false. Look around you - how are you more conscious than a deer or an octopus? 4. Finally, yes we can test for consciousness, and doctors often do. For an example, take the Turing test, which is the very first such test. Dealing with the Quantum Experiment: 1. I did not say that mind is "life-like". I said that it requires life (which I presume you agree, requires matter). Two reasons. One, without a body, a mind has no way to act anyway. A mind acting on an electron is frankly absurd because electrons cannot be observed, let alone controlled. Two, prima face a mind is part of the body, ie the experience of electrical charges within the brain. The burden of proof rests squarely on my opponent to tell us why he thinks this is not so. 2. Like and dislike are not evidence of freewill, let alone foolproof. They are themselves based on countless other experiences as I noted in my first point. All of them are linked back to individual experiences. I can remember all of my debates (which now number in the hundreds), and the positive experience associated with them that I gained from instinct, for example my competitiveness and my will to success. Where exactly is the free will in making a choice if my choice is predictable? 3. My opponent ignored 4/5 of my points, and I'd frankly like to hear more of a response from him. Dealing with Closed Systems: 1. How a closed system can give way to an open system: fire neutrons in a controlled manner at some electrons. Watch as the electrons disperse unpredictably. 2. "My" no-free-will theory is not self propounded: a Google search for "no free will" gives me half a million results, among them: http://www.wired.com... , http://www.physorg.com... , and http://www.naturalism.org... 3. Even if it were, I think my round one analysis, taking up two paragraphs, still justifies some sort of response. Dealing with van Lommel's experiment: 1. Van Lommel is trying to disprove an established theory, that our thinking is one with our brain. This is something that has been proved in numerous studies ie http://www.newscientist.com... and http://www.world-science.net... 2. To do so he needs strong evidence. 12% is not strong evidence. 3. Even if it were true that it were strong evidence, the study has had strong criticism from skeptics, because: a) It assumes people do not have life-insight changes after a NDE b) It deals with reported NDEs, there is no way to be sure that any study member was not lying c) And so on ... there is a list of about two dozen on this page: http://www.skepdic.com... Finally, I'm still not 100% sure what I'm arguing about. My opponent's model of a "consciousness force" has been rather ill-defined, so please clear that up. The points in this debate are at best moot, at worst they've fallen to me. Thus I should win this debate.