[csantini]

I see what you mean. The "existence" part I suspect is a trick. I think "That thing going on for the ride", is actually just a feeling evolved for a bodily purpose.

The body is doing the ride, with all its chemical gradients pulling the levers, and the thing we call Consciousness it's just "the feeling of the ride" which has evolved to keep some temporal/spatial unity. You could have legs, and memories, without being able to connect them to you.

For example, without that feeling of unity, the brain wouldn't not know which subject all the things are related to.

Something would be thirsty or hungry, but it wouldn't know that is the same thing with those legs and memories that it was referring to a just a moment ago.

[Calamity]

True, but that ability to relate a certain feeling to an internal issue (e.g. thirst or hunger) is somewhat of a learnt behavior. It was part of the childhood ride that has now long been forgotten.

This still, however, doesn't solve the issue that those signals "exist" somewhere from a certain point of perspective. I think sight highlights this to me the most clearly. Although vision serves a purpose in deciding motor function, it also simply exists. I don't "feel" that I see - I simply "see".

Going back to how you phrase it - who or what is "feeling"? Everything we do or think may be mechanical, but there is a distinction between I and my dog. I am not riding the dog-life roller-coaster, I am riding my own human-life roller-coaster.

If I cloned myself, I'd be happy to state that both versions would think and behave as me, but I would only exist in one of them.