Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Take the first point:

1. Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge.

-In order for (1) to be true, it must thus be derived from experience and/or reasoning.
-However, the definition of knowledge (including "true knowledge") is not arrived at by experience or by reasoning. Therefore, according to logical positivism, it's own definition of knowledge is meaningless.
-Thus logical positivism, as your research has defined it, is self-refuting.

That is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from the definition of knowledge.
knowl·edge
ˈnälij/
noun
noun: knowledge; plural noun: knowledges

1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
expertise, skill, proficiency, expertness, accomplishment, adeptness, capacity, capability;
informalknow-how
"his knowledge of history"
learning, erudition, education, scholarship, schooling, wisdom
"people anxious to display their knowledge"
familiarity with, acquaintance with, intimacy with
"an intimate knowledge of the countryside"
information, facts, intelligence, news, reports, hot tip;
informalinfo, (the) lowdown
"inform the police of your knowledge"
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
"the transmission of knowledge"
Philosophy
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge" Google.

Your claim that "the definition of knowledge (including "true knowledge") is not arrived at by experience or by reasoning" is the polar opposite of the definition of knowledge.

I think you didn't make yourself clear enough for me. Can you spell it out in simple layman's terms? Some examples of it's self refutation would be nice.

When we are talking about the definition of knowledge, we're not talking about the dictionary definition, but the definition that the logical positivists are using. The definition the logical positivists use is found in (1) of your list of tenets. For the purpose of the argument, we will use their own definition. After all, logical positivists are certain to agree with it.

I.
Look at (1): "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge." Stated clearly, it says " Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." This much should be uncontroversial.

II.
"Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." is a knowledge claim. Ie, logical positivists claim to KNOW that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."

III.
Therefore, the claim that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." must have experience and reasoning to support it.

IV.
Nothing in our experience and reasoning tells us that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."

V.
Therefore, "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." is not knowledge.

VI.
Logical positivism affirms (1), "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." therefore logical positivism affirms something that is not knowledge.

VI.
Therefore logical positivism is self-refuting.

The debatable premise for you might be (IV), ie whether there is experience and reasoning that supports the claim that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."

You could argue from induction, something like "We have ten trillion examples of knowledge learned from experience and reasoning." But this is fallacious reasoning. If we see ten trillion white swans, that doesn't mean a black swan cannot exist.

Therefore IV is true.