but your brain is unable to think. it only affects thinking, it doesnt actually produce thought. the point being= it wasnt your brain rationalizing. it was you. (making a distinction between you(the thinking being) and your brain(an organ that affects you)
1. What DOES produce thought, then? What is its relation to brains and why is it undetectable? How does it causally interact with brains? Why is it related to brains the way it is? What is its origin? Why is it related to brains and not, say, hearts? Why does the activity of brains limit what types of thought can be produced -- as brain lesion studies make clear -- if such thoughts are produced by ethereal, magical thought makers? Is it really necessary to posit thought producers above and beyond brains? How good of an explanation is it to attribute mentality to an undetectable entity with no proven causal impact on the world versus an object in the class of scientifically established, REAL objects whose causal impact is measurable and amenable to study?
2. If you want to attribute mentality to something above and beyond the brain, the only plausible entity around is the organism that possesses that brain. So, strictly speaking, we needn't say "my brain is in pain!" but rather "I am in pain!" even though brains are necessary for such mental states. But that doesn't at all mean you and I are magical floaty spirits that wisp about and are just renting the head space of an organism. In fact, this is a patently stupid idea -- unless you can develop compelling answers to the questions in (1), that is. We are organisms that have brains as parts.
"i think, therefore i am" .. brain doesnt think.. it affects thinking.. YOU think.. you are not an organ.. nor are you the surmass of all your bodyparts.. look to organisms that lack a brain but still function as if they have one.. for example bacteria.. bacteria think.. but no brain.. where does the thinking happen ?? thinking beings are prisoners in the flesh.. the flesh affects the thinking being.. the thinking being affects the flesh.. but they are not one in the same..
3. "I" is a personal pronoun which refers to conscious beings. If you agree with the dictum "I think, therefore I am" and also believe that bacteria think, you ought to believe that bacteria are conscious beings. Do you really think this?
4. Who says bacteria think, anyway? What do you mean by "think"? The people who study them certainly don't think this.
5. Hmm, it's hard to analyze the claim 'you aren't the surmass of your bodyparts' when 'surmass' isn't even a word. Maybe you can clarify this sentence for us?
6. You say that thinking beings are mere prisoners of flesh, and that flesh (matter) does not produce thought. This implies that thinking is an essentially immaterial activity and that by extension, thinkers are immaterial. Now, back to your bacteria: if thinkers are immaterial and bacteria think, then bacteria are immaterial. Do you
really mean to say something to the effect that every bacteria is essentially a little soul that is just 'imprisoned' in some matter arranged bacteria-wise for a temporary time?
7. Maybe you'll bite the bullet and accept the proposition that your last steaming pile of shit was full of souls (which must be true if thinkers are immaterial souls and bacteria think). I haven't focused on logical inconsistencies, but on whether a theory that would lead to such a claim is the best theory on hand. But we can't even have that discussion until you develop such a theory, which entails developing plausible and mutually compatible answers for the questions in (1).
tl;dr You've presented terribly muddled thinking that leads to absurdity and the only hope would be to construct an amazing theory of mentality that saves dualist intuitions -- something nobody has ever done in 2,500+ years of philosophizing. And using made-up words leads to embarassing attempts at sounding smart. The end.