"What is the mind? It is a phenomenon that is not body, not substantial, has no form, no shape, no color, but, like a mirror, can clearly reflect objects." ~ Lama Zopa Rinpoche

I'm not talking about the brain, which is a part of the body, I am talking about the mind, and specifically the 'parts' of the mind that are considered continually residing, and not directly dependent upon the brain or body. (Yes, dependent in the sense that without this body, functioning in the form realm ceases.)

As to my background; yes, I have studied these things broadly - behavioral science major with a minor in language in linguistics - so while I may not have a PhD in cognitive science, I am confident that I understand what I read in modern texts and abstracts. I have also studied Buddhism for 33 years, and I am confident that I understand those texts too. Outside of these 'credentials', which are ultimately meaningless in and of themselves, one must rely upon practical experiences and either look for meaning, or not.

Whatever the source of the words we use to label the things and phenomena we experience, we are utterly dependent upon our own experience of them to derive any meaning. We are then dependent upon the language that is used to convey the experience or observation. So, while you may be very able to tell me in the parlance of modern science how a works and how you believe that all our experiences arise from that bio-chemical interaction, I can say that from my experience, what you are describing is not mind (as I know it).

Even in psychology, where cognitive schema come perhaps closest to a modern definition of saṃskāra, I prefer the older terminology, not out of nostalgia or out of a sense of superiority, but because the language is more concise, and relates experience to the experiencer in a way that modern language constructs fail to do.

The first verse of the Dhammapada states:

"All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind."

Similarly, in the Abidharma (the earliest attempt at a systematic representation of Buddhist philosophy and psychology), the world is regarded as a phenomena originating in the mind.

Mind is defined in Buddhism as:

"A non-physical phenomenon which perceives, thinks, recognises, experiences and reacts to the environment. As such, the mind is described as having two main aspects: clarity and knowing; meaning that the mind is clear, formless and allows for objects to arise in it, and that the mind is knowing, an awareness, a consciousness which can engage with objects." [1]

In order for us to agree upon this, because I have heard you disagree about this fundamental premise before, we would have to agree on every term used in tae definition, such as; think, recognize, react, clear, formless, and so forth. My experience with trying to come to agreement on these terms, especially with scientists as opposed to linguists, is that it rapidly degenerates into arguing semantics, and when people do not have a firm grasp of semantic roots, a battle of ad hominem ego posturing. (blue-j, this is not your tendency BTW ;)

For the sake of this dialog - I do not wish to 'go there' - it is fine to disagree.

[1] buddhism.kalachakranet.org/mind.html