No, I get it. Objecting to something doesn't mean I don't understand it.

Okay. From the previous posts it didn't seem like you were/are thoroughly familiar with buddhist philosophy so I was attempting to explain.

You can't find an emergent phenomenon in reductionist logic. The fact that my body is completely different every 7 years is a favorite puzzler of pop philosophy, but it's unimpressive.

Many philosophers do. You can attempt to cast aside the position by labelling it as "pop philosophy" but it is a legitimate position known as materialism and a legitimate philosophical problem. You can disagree but let's not pretend the mind-body problem doesn't exist and that people who are materialists are flat out wrong. That's not a position anyone in modern day philosophy would take, even those who disagree with materialism.

And there are different answers. The fact that other people have asked similar questions doesn't imply anything about whether a particular answer holds up.

That's my point. There are different answers and it is still an ongoing topic in modern day philosophy, the mind-body problem. You seem comfortable in your personal solution to the mind-body problem, which is fine, but let's not be coy and disregard any singular solution to the mind-body problem. This entire conversation of "you are not your arm" is similar to a materialist position. Buddhists are not necessarily materialists. But you cannot disregard materialism as a whole and claim it's false. You can disagree. People have been trying to prove/disprove materialism for literally centuries.

Yes. And no. And you know what? Any robust answer to those kinds of questions would be complex, because reality is complex.

Exactly. This is another thing that this whole "you are not your arm" is relaying to people engaged with buddhism.