This is the point of view of physicalism ala Dennet, etc. And I do not think it is accurate at all. MRI, PET scans, etc., don't measure the mind. They measure the brain's bloodflow, etc., but they do not measure minds.
You seem to hold a substantialist view. There is no mind to measure. There is bloodflow and electrical patterns and nerve impulses that "seem" like a mind. The illusion is strong but there is really no independent mind.
Consciousness is classfied as a dravya [lit 'flow'], in classical Buddhist texts. So, conventionally, it is a substance, like water, or fire, it is not a material substance; it is a substance of a different order than material substances.
But the cause and condition of a mind is not a brain, from a Buddhist perspective.
Judging from your disagreements with Gelugs and so on, I'm not sure a single Buddhist perspective exists. For example, HHDL seems pretty open to all this, MIT invites Buddhists to help with this work, there is even a new branch of "contemplative science." I find it fascinating rather than threatening and believe it will help us better understand ourselves and so be better able to relieve suffering.
The perspective on this in Tibetan Buddhism comes from the second chapter of Dharmakirti's Pramanasiddhi, where he systematically excludes physicalism. This text is shared by all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, and no one disagrees with its points. The reason why people disagree with Tsongkhapa is that his explanations of things are not discernable in Indian Madhyamaka literature, which he himself admits, combined with his and his disciples assertion that Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka view came about largely as a result of a series of spiritual encounters he had with the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, and not out of his personal intellectual investigations.
I don't feel threatened by research into cogntion and the brain. You might think that knowledge about the relationship between the brain and sense organs is modern, not know to Tibetan Buddhists before the 20th centruy -- but in point of fact Tibetan Medicine was aware of the connection between the brain, sense organs and internal organs from at least the 11th century and understood the function of the brain was to act as a central processsor for sense data, as well as the organ that goverend motor impulses, internal organ function, so on and so forth. All of this information is pretty clearly described in Tibetan Medical literature on nerve damage and head injuries.
...the onus is on you to show us a "mind" without an associated brain or person.
Such a demonstration is cognitively closed to anyone who has not developed the yogic capacity to know other minds directly. If one had that ability, then there are all kinds of phenomena in the universe one could experience but never prove to someone else who had not developed the same skills.
These recent scientific studies confirm ancient Buddhist truths. Anatta. Emptiness in spades. I would think this fascinating to anyone studying Buddhism.
Hume rejected a self too. Not too interesting, from my point of view. He also rejected necessary connection -- Nagarjuna beat him to the punch by 1500 years.
The fact that there is no identity, or self, is the natural conclusion of the logic of dependent origination. Scientic studies only confirm what some Buddhists have already known for millenia -- entities in causal relationships have no intrinsic nature or essence. If entities did, they would not need to be in causal relationships.
The primary difference between Buddhist schools was in how far down they were willing to extend that analysis. The non-Mahāyāna schools stopped at paramanus i.e. "atoms"; the Mahāyāna Yogacara school stopped at consciousness. Madhyamaka extended its analysis all the way and came up with emptiness as the basis of reality i.e. that in the end, reality has no objective basis whatsoever.
My teachers encouraged an attitude of curiosity. Hope I don't lose this.
The unwillingness to entertain the idea that yogis may possess knowledge that cannot be tested for in a lab is a form of lacking of curiosity. Thinking that PET scans, etc., prove that the mind is merely an epiphenomenal illusion is simply fundamentalist physicalism. The only thing these experiments prove is what Buddhists have been saying all along, mind and matter can interact, conventionally speaking. Pet scans don't work on formless realm beings. You would assert it is because they don't exist. Buddhists would assert that it is because they do not have physical bodies. As I said, you can only verify their existence yogically. You cannot share that perception directly in an empirical or testable fashion, because not everyone has the same capacity to do develop the necessary skills to perceive devas in the form and formless realms.