Jan Ardena:
I'm asking if this quote of your...
The "you" is your brain and body. Your consciousness is based on sensory input that comes to you from all your senses, which are distributed throughout your body - and is expressed by your voice, your hands and your body (i.e. your muscles.) Your brain drives all of that.
The awareness that you consider to be 'you' is an emergent property of the complex neural network that we've evolved to help us survive.
... is this quote true, and is it also a scientific fact.
It should be a simple yes, or no answer.
All interesting statements in science are theories, not facts, if by "fact" you mean a direct observation. Scientific theories are inductive. They reason from the raw "facts" to generalised conclusions.
Referring to the quoted statement here are some established "facts":
* Human beings have senses.
* They are distributed through the body.
* Conciousness is expressed by the voice, the hands and the body (muscles).
* The brain drives (controls) the voice, the hands, and the body.
* The brain is a complex neural network.
And here is an uncontroversial scientific theory, based on these facts:
* Human awareness depends on the senses, and ergo on the brain.
* Consciousness requires awareness, ergo consciousness depends on the brain.
We also have the following deductions, based on well-established theory supported by innumerable facts that are not mentioned in the quote:
* The brain has evolved to help us survive.
* Consciousness promotes a survival advantage.
We also have a definition:
* The feeling/perception that there is a "you" is a feature of consciousness - i.e. it is part of what we mean by the term "consciousness".
And a deduction from the above:
* The feeling of "you", being a feature of consciousness, depends on the brain.
And finally a hypothesis:
* The brain is
all that is required to produce the feeling of "you".
---
So, you see that, as with all useful scientific statements, it is quite a job to separate "fact" from "theory", and trying to divide the world up into that particular binary is usually not very productive.
The final statement above is, as I have said, a hypothesis - an idea that we can work with to make further progress in science. As far as I know, there is no evidence that tends to refute that hypothesis, and the hypothesis is consistent with everything that appears above it.
Does this help you?