Exactly; that's the spirit!

To say that it isn't relevant because Theseus' Ship is based on opinions I think is flawed - the ship cannot be both X and not X, and as such some people's opinions must simply be wrong - this is the law of noncontradiction.

Your second point is interesting. I'm not sure how else you can vindicate your position of the body having totally changed, and the mind having totally changed ('impressions') but there still remaining certain parts of who you are. This is the thing I am trying to tackle in my article and I feel like your response cannot accommodate how this happens.

Has that changed your opinion at all or am I still missing your point?

Totally agree - I wrote an article recently about free will and actually concluded that it's simply impossible in the sense that people think of it normally. Not sure what you think of determinism haha a lot of people tell me to stop being stupid when I spurt on about how there is no legitimate choice!

This kind of splitting of the body would be sufficient to prohibit continuity of identity such that neither is really 'you'. I think anyway... it's a confusing area and full of problems I keep running into!

Thanks for your comment, and yes I appreciate that scientific laws are not deductively valid but the sheer inductive weight of evidence in support of the two laws evidenced, coupled with the fact that it seems inconceivable to imagine how they may be broken, even in principle, leads me to conclude that they are as provable as provable gets in the realm of experience. There is no requirement for the laws to be deductively infallible but rather empirically necessary.

Are you familiar with the Princess of Bohemia's letter written in Response to Descartes, when he posited the existence of a non-extended, causally relevant mind? She argued that in order for anything to interact there must be some shared property through which the interaction might occur i.e. if two things share absolutely no properties then they cannot causally interact. Relating this to the rebuttal you offered; it is logically impossible for a nonphysical thing to affect a physical thing - there isn't a single property they share in virtue of how the two things are defined. Whether or not you agree with the Princess I think is irrelevant - if you cannot conceive of a single way in which the physical might interact with the non-physical, which I don't think you can (just as you cannot imagine a square circle) then it must be said to be logically impossible.

Do you find these responses satisfactory?