Do you believe in free will?

[Angrboda]

Sorry Apo, the brain being "I" isn't handwaving, nor is it selling anything, it's the determination we make after weighing demonstrable evidence. If you, or buddhism has some demonstrable evidence to weigh against this, I'm sure somebody somewhere is dying to see it.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying the brain doesn't host the self, but saying the brain is the self is as wrongheaded as saying the refrigerator is beer because it contains beer, or that the car engine is combustion or vice versa.

Moreover, I think that the very language itself is wrong. If we could harness Maxwell's demons to take every molecule in the brain and basically make them orbit in circles so they never get to their destination, the "I" would cease to exist. If the "I" were a thing instead of a process, this wouldn't occur. That it does occur (or would occur) is, I think, persuasive evidence that the self is not a thing, simpliciter. The brain, however, is a thing simpliciter.

Materialists who say that the self is the brain are simply attempting to hide their ignorance. Yes, some self thing or process is going on inside the brain that is the self, but it's only one of many things going on in there. I at this moment depend on the food, warmth, and air in this room, it is as intricately a part of the causal chain as what is happening inside my skull, yet it would be a clear error to say "I" am this room (or this planet, or galaxy). And the reason both your usage and that usage are nonsensical is because the statement makes no meaningful distinction between what is and is not a part of the object or process. It's handwaving, as I said. It's almost a variant of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, only in that you've drawn your bullseye so large that you can't help but hit the target. But this is at the expense of what you are saying having any real significant meaning. You've cheapened the term self, robbing it of substance, if not outright equivocated on the term. Consider this, the nature of our eyes are a critical neurological component in our visual perception — are they not then a part of the "I"? What if I lose them, do I have less of an "I" then? What if I lose some squamous cells in the shower? Are we daily losing a part of the "I"? According to your interpretation, we are. And that would be equivocation.

(For what it's worth, I think the Buddha was wrong. I personally have my own theory about how the brain gives rise to the self. But your answer, "Well... 'stuff' gives rise to the self." is a non-answer.)