And once again, I tried engaging with you, now you are calling it a silly game.
Sorry, for me this is not a constructive question. It’s human self indulgence and hubris, our desire to play God. (and a reflection of how we got to this self-cannibalizing stage of our human story)
I’m looking for people who appreciate physics reality and biological evolutionary reality and the half a billion years worth of generations that went into making us.
And you present me with an indulgent brain teaser that belongs in a science fiction world. Seriously framing such a question is simply beyond my scope.
Yes there have been people who must be disconnected from life support. So what, we die all the time. Without today’s extraordinary medical interventions that person would have been dead. So be it.
Okay, as for your question.
No, I don’t think the brain can be replaced because it is an intimate partner of the body from conception forward. A brain from one being could not function in any real sense in a foreign body. Lab experiments and the imaginative extrapolations people dream up not withstanding.
IF we knew how to create an artificial brain, then perhaps they could. But the question is academic, I think, and unanswerable for that reason.
‘Cause’, is a matter of 1.
‘Consequence’, is a matter of 2.
‘Concealment’, is a matter of 5.
I think the self is more concealment of mind, and that mind is concealed by the vessel.
I would, if the original poster, expand the original question to include ‘concealment’.
You replied:
Yet, prior to that you said:
I put the entire quote in bold to call your attention to the attitude you have towards the brain, dismissing that it is the seat of consciousness. And yet in your response, you said that the brain is an intimate partner of the body so they cannot be separated**.** This is lacking in insight and real argument. What does intimate partner mean? And why they can’t be separated?
Apparently developers are close to getting the reality of implants and neural chips implantable in human brain to create links. Surely not an entire artificial brain, but there is hope for neural patches and repairs.
Point of information (nothing more): I think the typical approach was not dismissed, but only doubted. To say “I’m not convinced that X is TRUE” is not saying “X is FALSE”, is it?
************************************
I suspect that a “patch”, a repair, is very different from a full substitution, wouldn’t you say? Fitting me with a leg support is one thing, but fitting me with a new or substitute leg is rather different, and rather more, yes?
What does seat of consciousness mean?
If you claimed the brain is the conductor of our consciousness, that I could do something with.
Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Mark Solms?
I’m no expert, but he is and his summary quote is worth musing on:
Consciousness is best understood as a reflection of our body/brain communicating with itself.
My trying to explain would only invite derision.
Please check those links,
there you’ll find the substantive facts that have helped mold my worldview.
=========================
Also the work of Dr. Nick Lane is another key to appreciating the perspective I’m coming from, (heck where we come from).
A scientific approach to understanding your “Self” - Nick Lane PhD. A Students Resource.
It is my view that all things are connected. I mean that both in the typical airy-fairy hippy way, and also more literally. Scaling down from the Universe to a single human, the parts of the bodymind are intimately connected, in a myriad ways.
When we start to apply scientific reductionism, we zoom in on the object of interest, discarding and dismissing other parts, and (perhaps most importantly) the connections. In doing so, we lose much. IMO. And that is why/how the human brain and body are indivisibly connected. “Intimate partners”, in your words.
The connections I write of are figurative, some of them, and literal too. The sheer number of connections between brain and body carried by the nervous system is close to overwhelming, and this is just one, er, type of connection. There are many more.
Why would you think otherwise? Have I missed something?
I have no formal training in philosophy, so most of what I know about the science of Epistemology was learned on this forum in the last 15 years. I do have some basic training for Science-in-general. And Quantum Physics has been the most philosophical of the physical sciences. Years ago, I read an article by a physicist discussing the key concepts of subatomic physics. In his conclusion he exclaimed : “it’s all information”.
So, that was my introduction to the modern notion of Information, beyond the traditional attribution of immaterial Ideas in a material brain. Later, I coined a neologism to convey the idea that mental Information (ideas) is somehow related to both metaphysical Form (Plato) and physical Energy (work ; transformation) : EnFormAction.
Along the way I learned that a broader understanding of Information is essential to modern philosophical reasoning :
"Information is neither matter nor energy, although it needs matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated. Why should it become the preferred basis for all philosophy?"1.
More recently, I have focused on the relation of Energy to Causation-in-general (First Cause ; power to transform). In The Book of Why, Israeli-American electrical engineer, computer scientist and philosopher Judea Pearl, concluded that “Information and causation are one and the same thing”.
Therefore, my name for that “formative principle” is EnFormAction (causation + form >>> directed Evolution). Hence, late-emerging Life and Mind are both embodied forms of Causation. Energy makes things move ; Life organizes bodies to animate and self-sustain over time ; And Mind allows bodies to interact (enactivism?) with the environment based on Self-Interest. 
1. Information Philosopher : Information
Mind is a consequence of body-matter mixing with brain-space.
You are your body-matter and brain-space.
Mind can be offline or online.
When mind is offline, it does not shut-down brain-space.
I think there’s confusion between brain-space and online mind. A lot of people seem to think brain accepting sense-data, is mind.
No. Mind is a self-extension.