But where is the "you" in all this?
In physical terms we are just a biological machine with replaceable parts. There is nothing in this physical model to define the continuity which comprises "you". It is the "Trigger's broom" syndrome.
Well sort of but since the Trigger's Broom paradox is about a concept, not a actual thing claimed to be existing, then it's a category mistake about your claim as well as an incorrect title as it is a paradox not a syndrome.
So let's break this down. The question in the Trigger's Broom paradox is that the award is being given given for it being the original broom that at that point is assumed to be the same head and handle have both been replaced X times, in what sense is it the original broom. It is always The broom owned by Trigger and he has never received an actual replacement broom.
While this is an interesting philosophical nicety the issue is about the continuity not about there being an actual thing about Trigger's broom that is separate from its physicality. There are questions that relate to how we talk about such things a i/you which relate to continuity, but the claim for an actual separate thing you are making a soul is not related to Tigger's broom, as that is merely a label attached to an object.
You would be better suggesting something like Plato's Broom, though that too has problems. If you were to posit an ideal Platonic broom, it would at least have the benefit of not being dependent on the physical and having an existence as a concept beyond the physical. Leaving aside the problems of what that means which I would suggest were never addressed by Plato's, it still leaves you with an issue as it posits only one such ideal broom concept (and possibly a concept that includes all such cleaning equipment which are used with a sweeping motion), not a myriad of them that is needed for your position.
So having moved through your misuse of the paradox, and pointed out issues even were we to tart up your ideas, let's look at what you are really attempting here which is to note that because we have a concept of the 'i' which is more than a label, i.e. this has an existence as well as continuity of label, then there is such a thing that actually had existence. Unfortunately this is, as has been pointed out a number of times to you, an example of the reification fallacy in that we cannot state existence simply by referring to it being talked about - so the mention of unicorns farting rainbows does not mean they exist.
The concept of the individual though is one that you are right to point out forms crucial basis for almost all of what we talk about. And there feels like there is a power in that argument. Add to that what 'i' feel is my experience and we are back at the reason why Leonard joins you in a belief in free will. It's not just hard to believe intellectually, it might well b impossible to believe in any sense at all, hence the cogito. And while I might start I think the cogito is better stated as 'there is thinking', the powerful charge that deep down 'I am thinking that there is thinling' is hard to deny.
And yet, we have to balance that we know that whatever is thinking can apparently be completely wrong, both from external viewing and internal experience. We know that what we state as knowledge, again externally and internally, is subject to change (hence gives us the Socratic view of epitemology). And worse we know that what evidence for what happens neuroligically does not tie in with the idea that there is this coherent, continuous 'thing' separate from the label.
As a final thought in what is a way longer post than I intended, all the neuroligical evidence in the world will never effectively indicate that we have no such thing as your soul since it is already defined in your approach as non naturalistic. Free will, when defined, as neither determined or random is removed from being falsifiable. That's the reason why for this as with your other beliefs in miracles, you need to come up with some methodology that works for those. I cannot rule out your claims but in the lack of a methodology, I cannot rule them in either. Bluehillside likes to compare such claims to guesses but a guess is that you weigh between 8 and 16 stone. That there is something that cannot be measured, falsified, or given a definition that has any recognisable attributes is not even a guess.
