If you do that experiment as you say, you end up with two radios. Obviously the second radio is not the first. Therefore, the way I understand it, replacing any part of it changes the whole.
That way of thinking has its drawbacks. Pick up a regular vegetable. If you eat that vegetable, you will probably gain body mass, or at least exchange some sugars. If you do not eat that vegetable, are you killing yourself? Perhaps not yourself, but life, or the potential for life? Life as we know it has mass that it gets from food. By throwing away that food are we not killing millions each year? By not cleaning my plate am I commiting murder? Is preventing life the same as taking it away? As you can tell, this whole idea can get out of hand quickly. I suppose one counter-arguement would be that if I didn't eat the vegetable, it was never meant to be life, and I was doing no wrong.
"My hunch is that the brain is a two-way communication device (more like a cell phone than a radio) connecting our bodies (brains) to the consciousness of ____. I will leave the blank for you to fill. I was going to write 'God', but since my concept of God is probably unacceptable to everyone else, believers and non-believers alike, I had probably better stop using that term."
Perhaps "omniscience" (omniscient: allknowing) is what you're looking for. Probably a rewording of the sentence would make more sense with that word. ... the omniscient consciousness.
I once was a theist, then I was an atheist, now I could be best described as an atheist-leaning agnostic. The question came from an idea that the universe is like a computer, and the universe itself is God (with its own rules and absolute control), and we the imagination of God. But I believe thats true, so why do I consider myself an atheist-leaning agnostic instead of a theist? The answer to that is in word definitions and opinions. If you believe God can be described like that, then I am a theist; if not, then I am a theist. I add atheist-leaning because I see God as another word for existence in that idea, and of course existence is real, so God is nothing more than a word- but it does not have miracles and/or heaven and/or hell (etc.). So, although God/existence has absolute control, its rules do not change as in miracles, and GOd/existence i subject to its own rules. I think I explained that wll enough... any questions?