I've very carefully and comprehensively laid out the variables.
(EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination
And you're "answer" is "nuh-uh".
This is not an "argument". Technically this is referred to as "gain-saying".
My response wouldn't amount to a "nuh-uh." I'm pointing out that you're evaluating the veracity or falsifiability of the claim, "self-caused" contingent on my capacity to substantiate it, rather than evaluate the claim itself. [You have done so before but not in this instance.] That's an appeal to ignorance:
(IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.
You created a logical biconditional premised on my capacity or "willingness" which are impertinent to the soundness of a claim.
Strangely enough, I agree with you that Quanta (science) is a sub-category of Qualia (metaphysics).
HOWeVer, this does not mean that you can simply throw empirical observation out-of-the-proverbial-window.
I'm not suggesting that it be thrown out the window; I'm suggesting it be understood in context. The mind is the starting point for all evaluation.
This bald assertion is beyond our epistemological limits.
"The Mind" might be our individual metaphysical "bedrock", but that does not exclude the possibility of "The Mind" being an aspect of NOUMENON.
Actually, it's precisely within our epistemological limits because the premise doesn't presume that everything is "metaphysical." And you presume that which one has labeled "Noumenon." Pondering the possibility of Noumenon is a manifestation of your mind, and even if you were to comprehend and rationalize it, Noumenon would then be subjected by your mind, making it not Noumenon. It is not a bald assertion to state that the Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it because the mind informs subjective experience. And subjective experience cannot be controlled for independent of the mind. Even one's conception and understanding of the brain is informed by the mind. As I stated above, the mind is the starting point for all evaluation. And existence independent of these evaluations is irrational.
I agree, it is irrational to attempt to discuss anything that might be considered "truly" "incomprehensible" (GNOSIS).
I see what you did there. But that does not define the scope of the premise.
Have you ever "changed your mind"?
Yes, as in changing an opinion, not swapping. That more an issue of lexicon than anything else.
This conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from your stated premises, and therefore fails to qualify as sound logic.
Yes it does.
P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
P2: That which comes before or remains "outside" the mind is irrational to any subject.
P3: One's mind and One are the same.
P4: I perceive myself.
C1: Therefore, I am self-caused.
You can challenge my rationalizations of the premises but the conclusion does follow.