I would quite literally be not quite as much a person if my foot was removed. 5 pounds less!
And if you removed my entire body, I would no longer be a person at all, if we stick with a plain and simple definition of what a person is.
I wonder if a 100 amputees were asked if they are less of a person than a non amputee because of the loss of an appendage, how many would say yes. And while you're checking the weight on the removed foot, is "your" shoe still on "your" foot, and is that part of your lost personhood? There are certainly more ways a person can be attached to "things" besides structurally.
I guess the concept that most needs exploration, at least in this discussion, is that the statement, a "plain and simple definition", it may not exist. What is plain an simple to one may well be something entirely different to another separate person.
What I'm suggesting, and is oft repeated here in this forum in many different ways, is that there is a falseness to a particular type of identity. That particular identity is adopted, and someone who has seen the nature of its reality, clearly, may accurately say, "I don't exist".
Let's be clear. The identity, the 'me", that doesn't exist, is the one with the name. It is the one that sees the world outside, but peceives not the world inside. It is the person-identity that fears for its safety and longs for a better future, at the expense of full participation in this moment. It is an assumption of an exclusivity that believes itself to be separate from the objects it sees "out there".
The purpose of seeing this mental clutter clearly, is that That which sees the clutter, as a pattern within Awareness, is That which we Truly are. It is the "I" that knows that all it perceives are fluid, ever changing, patterns within its Being. It is freedom from entrapment in separation-identity that the return to Conscious Awareness offers.