Pleasure and Joy

[Neo-Scholastic]

...numbers, meanings and thoughts themselves are mental properties. They cannot exist without a mind. Which is why applying the same logic to mind itself is putting the cart before the horse.

The first part is correct. No knowledge can exist apart from a mind that knows.

If brain generates mind, then alterations in brain would produce changes in consciousness. If it fails to do so, then the hypothesis is falsified...Your response to this is obvious.

That's a bit presumptious, especiallly since that would not be my objection. I agree that alterations in the brain produce changes in consciousness. That does not exclude the possibility that changes in mind produce changes in the brain.

You'd argue that consciousness itself is not changed, but the expression of consciousness is. The problem with that is that position is unfalsifiable - as long as you continue to define consciousness in such a way that it remains beyond scientific inquiry.

True. I believe that some problems are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. For example, determining whether a number is irrational or not. The mind-body problem falls into that category.

It also goes against the law of identity. If consciousness exists, it'd have a specific nature and its expression would be indicative of that nature. Therefore, any change in its expression would be indicative of a change in
consciousness itself.

You're confusing essential properties with accidental properties. Anything that exists has both. A particular person can be standing still or running, happy or sad, and still be the same person. The mind is not different in this regard. It's contents can vary and it can operate on the brain in various capacities and still be the same mind. Nevertheless consciousness (which is itself only one particular state of mind) does have a specific nature: intentionality. While the contents of consciousness vary, this feature of consciousness is always present.