Can you quote a sutta on this? As far as I am aware your definition of mind falls outside of the dependent origination, which is what most Buddhists would point to that is how mind is created. So you have to show why all the things listed in the dependent origination is not the mind and what suttas support this.
PS. Just to be fair, here’s the sutta to refute your claim of this:
sn35.23
At Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, I will teach you the all. Listen …
And what is the all? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and ideas. This is called the all.
Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”
At Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, all is liable to be reborn. And what is the all that is liable to be reborn? The eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact are liable to be reborn. And the pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact is also liable to be reborn.
The ear … nose … tongue … body … The mind, ideas, mind consciousness, and mind contact are liable to be reborn. And the pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact is also liable to be reborn.
Seeing this a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned … They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’”
“Mendicants, all is liable to grow old. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to fall sick. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to die. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to sorrow. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to be corrupted. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to end. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to vanish. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to originate. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to cease. …”