You've had your say and proved nothing.
I've systematically deconstructed your incoherent ontology and revealed every fatal flaw to which your only responses have been childish posturing, avoidance, cherry picking and additional incoherent assertions out of your ass that don't even pass the most rudimentary logical assessments, let alone any kind of deeper philosophical rigor.
It's just a sophomoric combination of Descartes and substituting "mind" for "brain" by petulant fiat.
Case in point:
Mind is a word to describe that which experiences.
So, in other words, brain. You simply do not need--and have not justified, merely asserted--to go beyond the word "brain" for any of this drivel.
"Brain" is a word that refers to a collection of central processing organs located inside our skulls. "Experiences" are interpretations by the brain of information transmitted to the brain from the body's external sensory input devices (e.g., eyes, nose, mouth, skin, central nervous system, etc). The interpretation has already happened. Making up another word and then arbitrarily ascribing to it certain functions the brain
already has is completely unnecessary.
If, as in your tortured and now expanded ontology, "mind" has all of these meta/omni-capabilities you've just started pulling out of your ass (like somehow being able to observe itself in the act of physically directing muscle movement and somehow having some form of expansive existence that it can have a "within" for all the "experiences" etc) then so, necessarily must brain, which your ontology already affirms anyway.
What's the fucking point? All you've done is added another incoherent layer of complexity to something already complex, but
worse is you haven't done so
legitimately. You just keep pretending that fiat is argument.
It also describes all that is experienced.
So, the word "mind" describes "all that is experienced." WTF does that even mean? Again, going back to your ontology, that would mean the word "mind"
describes all of the brain's translations, which is clearly incoherent. It does not in any way
describe all of the brain's translations.
What you are TRYING to fiat is that, in your definition, the word "mind" represents the culmination of all of the body's experiences in life--marriage, and death, and eating fruit, and a stubbed toe, etc., etc., etc.--and that this
poetic collection of objective experiences makes us all what we are, etc.
It's a Hallmark card, at best, but the
fatal flaw in all of it is that the "experiences" are not, of course, objective and the "mind" doesn't exist in any substantive fashion and it was actually the brain that interprets the information from the "outside" world from the senses, so the far more coherent (yet still complex) use of a separate, more vague term like "mind" would be to say, "I use the word 'mind' when I mean the process of the brain's interpretation of external telemetry" or the like, but that still doesn't get us very far.
All that is experienced with and in a mind.
So, once again,
brain.
You simply have no legitimate justification for supplanting the word "brain" with "mind," which is precisely what you are trying to do.
It also describes something that has limited power. It can command the body to move. It can form arguments. All of this is mind.
You can't possibly establish any of this. You are simply fiating objective conditions.
This is our starting point.
No, this is you making incoherent assertions and just insisting that they are properly basic. Worse, your own ontology doesn't allow you to do any of this! You are asserting objective conditions based entirely on subjective observations that by your own otology must originate with and be generated by the brain, which, again, is an unreliable narrator.
In short, you have started with your pet conclusion in order to prove your pet conclusion and failed at every step to come anywhere close and instead of addressing all of the flaws and even attempting to fix them, you respond with unearned condescension and intellectual cowardice.