What is logic?

[Angrboda]

But let us see what this guy say........
First he say.............“We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life”........so far so good but this prove nothing whether the consciousness is or is not a product of the brain.

The point he is making is that the larger the repertoire of mental behaviors, the larger the brain and cerebral cortex. If these conscious behaviors were only dependent upon a disembodied consciousness, there would be no reason for the greater brain development, as according to your view, the brain isn't responsible for the complexity of your behavior. It's evidence because it is consistent with these conscious behaviors being a function of the brain. It is inconsistent with your notion that the consciousness is separate from the brain.

After he goes........the developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development........here the guy guess and guess.
In fact is the other way around.
It is the consciousness mind that determine brain development.

Whenever you don't like a piece of evidence, you characterize it as a guess. This is nothing but an emotional response to something you don't like, like saying, "Boo evidence!" It's a transparent dodge to avoid answering the evidence. In this case, the fact that failure in brain development results in failure of mental development is well documented. It's not a guess. What isn't documented is your assertion that the conscious mind determine brain development. Beyond being a bare assertion, it makes no sense of the clinical data. Do you have any evidence to support this?

Again he goes........ Brain damage destroys mental capacities.
“Third, clinical evidence consists of cases of brain damage that result from accidents, toxins, diseases, and malnutrition that often result in irreversible losses of mental functioning (45). If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn’t the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? ........

Here the guy get lost in his guesses.
It is obvious that if you have an accident both brain and mind suffer.
The consciousness mind is stuck inside body-brain.
She can not leave her body-mind until death occur therefore she doesn't have any choice but suffer.
The same occur to you or me  when we have an accident.
We are stuck inside your car so if the car get smashed we also get injured.
Here the guy think that if the mind is independent to the brain such a mind should be able to compensate
for lost faculties.
How stupid is he.    
He doesn't realize that the separation occur ONLY when the body-brain die not before.
Before the consciousness is stuck inside the brain and in this situation she got to suffer and suffer.

Speaking of guesses, here you repeatedly emphasize that consciousness does not act independent of the brain. That separation only occurs at death. Since nobody has yet to come back from being dead, and the behavior of the combined consciousness-brain is indivisible, I'm wondering how you know that you have two entities, consciousness-brain, instead of just one, the brain. Your answer is that NDEs prove that the consciousness is separate from the brain, but if anything is a guess, that is. You draw your conclusions about NDEs based on how well you can make it fit your dogma, not based upon anything that you truly know. NDEs aside, here you are admitting that consciousness-brain act as one, so there's no reason to speculate that they are separate and independent. The law of parsimony indicates that the simplest solution is likely correct. You add an independent consciousness based upon dogma and uncertain evidence from NDEs. Whereas it is clear that if you lack parts of the brain, you lack certain abilities to think, it's not clear that NDEs can't occur in the brain after loss of blood flow to the brain. So the balance lies with the connection which is certain, reinforced by parsimony: there is no separate consciousness aside from the brain.

And more..........Experiments and measurements on the brain (EEG, stimulation of various areas) indicate a correspondence between brain activity and mental activity.
“Fourth, the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from experiments in neuroscience. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states (45).”.....

This is pretty obvious as the consciousness mind is stuck inside the brain.

Oh? How does stimulation of brain tissue evoke the re-experiencing of past events? There's nothing obvious here except that once again when you don't have an answer for the evidence, you shout, "Boo evidence!" Exactly how is stimulation of the brain supposed to provoke the recollection of memories in an independent consciousness? At the very least, it shows that the activity of consciousness is not independent of activity in the brain. You have the burden of proof required to show that consciousness and the brain are separate, and your claims about what NDEs show doesn't cut it. The experiences these people have shows too many anomalous characteristics and contradictions for it to be considered evidence. (For example, people seeing things that are impossible in NDEs, and doing things that are documented not to have happened, like conversing with the living.)

And last...........The effects of drugs show correspondence between brain activity and mental activity.
“Finally, the experiential evidence for mind-brain dependence consists of the effects of several different types of drugs which predictably affect mental states.........


Nothing new in here.
Drugs force a chemical reaction in the brain and when the brain is affected also the consciousness is forced to put up with the crap and suffer.
Suffer and forced to open up creating a sense of temporary bliss at the expenses of course of damages
all over body-brain.

Funny how for the last three items, your response is that consciousness doesn't act like it's independent from the brain. In case your addled mind can't see it, that's evidence that they aren't independent. The law of parsimony again suggests that consciousness arises from the brain, not from some independent third party, consciousness, which is hypothesized to be independent, but is never actually seen as independent. And this car and driver analogy of yours is nothing but a bare assertion. The fact is, the car provides much of the function of transporting the driver, from the engine that provides power to the wheels that provide a rolling platform. In this same way, you're implicitly acknowledging that the brain provides many of the functions which permit consciousness to act as consciousness. There's no reason not to take that last step and suppose that the brain provides ALL of the functionality, including consciousness. Contrary to that suggestion and the evidence which even you admit doesn't attest to a separation in function between consciousness and brain, you have yoga dogma and your viewpoint on NDEs. The balance of evidence is against you.