An excellent concise and accurate statement of the interactive dualism theory of mind

You haven't been "shown" anything "directly"; rather, you're making inferences. You can't know what lies beyond your experience because all you have is experience, and experience is not the sort of thing that could be extended.

Because that is what you believe. Minds and consciousness are not limited to metaphysical models crafted by someone else. Minds and consciousness are limited only by experience and the mental models that mind or consciousness comprehends or believes to be possible.

So when I say I experienced my mind expanding ~ that's exactly what happened, because that was my experience.

Experience is what defines mental models, after all. Mental models do not define the world proper ~ they only define how the experiencer believes its perception of reality to be.

Can you accept that much?

No, I simply respect what words mean, and understand that their referents are not arbitrary.

And who defines what words mean, and how and why? You only seem to respect your definitions of the words in question, not allowing yourself to consider that perhaps words are merely tools to try and point to something indescribable. Thusly, words are not objective entities in and of themselves ~ they depend entirely on the definitions we subjects give to them, the definitions that we subjects agree upon.

Neither your nor my meanings that we grant to words are the final arbiter of anything.

And my experiences lead me to the difficult task of trying to express them through the limitations of language. But you cannot accept my definitions, and say that they must be wrong because your mental model somehow cannot accept them.

I accept your definitions of these words ~ but only within the context of Substance Dualism.

I cannot accept these definitions when thinking outside of Substance Dualism, as their meanings simply must adapt to the metaphysic in question. Each metaphysic uses the same words but with different definitions, after all.

The tricky task of language, words and definitions.

Your own record on this is not great: exhibit A; exhibit B.

Your examples are also not great, frankly. They're not even particular fair ones.

You're still missing the point, but I've lost interest in explaining it to you.

Well, you're also missing my point, and you don't seem keen to try and find middle ground at all. A little saddening...