Whether an act is silly, disruptive or off-topic is a matter of interpretation, Navigator. Our concept of self is under constant negotiation and different people bring different things to the figurative negotiation table. We have the benefit of being, seemingly, wonderfully malleable in this regard. Silliness, disruptiveness and being off-topic are methods of influencing what's on the figurative negotiation table.
The difficulty is not so much about what is true or not (in the Idealist universe you paint for us), but rather the implications of accepting and/or adopting this or that concept of self. Having seen no evidence for any kind of existence beyond the one we are familiar with (not having experienced the passenger you posit in any way whatsoever, and not able to prove in any meaningful way the existence of that passenger to others), I am not convinced that there is a passenger, nor (by extension) that there is another transcendent existence that supervenes on or is independent of the reality we experience - even if we could come up with a coherent understanding of what an "existence independent of reality" might be.
If I understand you correctly, you have now come to accept that a thing can "exist" without a consciousness to recognize it's existence. Speaking this way entails a meaning of existence independent of experience of existing. One can stipulate a meaning of "exist" such that existence is contingent on some experience of that existence. Whether that stipulation maps directly onto reality is an open and extra-system question. The important question at that point is which of these stipulations provides efficacy. What are the consequences of stipulating this stipulation instead that one.
You put forward the analogies of the driver, the passenger and the vehicle. That's all wonderfully imaginative, but there is no reason to suppose that these analogies hold true. The driver and the vehicle may very well be the same thing. That has been suggested by others. If you have the distrust of mere language that you have suggested you do (if I have read you correctly) then you understand that an analogy is not the thing itself. It is, at the very best, an imperfect descriptor. The difficulty with the descriptors/analogies you have posited is that they have little, if any kind of verifiable relationship to reality.
I can see you balking at the word "verifiable" as I type it (in my brain's eye). While it is true that our experience of reality is subjective, we seem to acquire a greater measure of human efficacy with reality when we measure things in terms of inter-subjectivity coupled with a determination to reference external referents (Realism). We suppose that there is a world as it is (Skeptics are, admittedly, Realists who recognize a reality as it is, but recognize also that our knowledge of that reality is inherently flawed). Scientific skepticism posits that we can conditionally "know" something of that reality, by means of evidential bases that seek to remove as much subjectivity as possible. While it may not be possible to remove all subjectivity, we can move in stages away from a purely subjective, intuitionist "method" to greater degrees of inter-subjectivity moving towards, but never achieving objectivity. That exercise has done wonders for modifying our (humanity's) ability to be efficacious in a "Realist" existence (in terms of that existence, of course).
We can posit another existence beyond that of the vehicle, the road, the destination and so forth, but we really have nothing but wishful thinking to support this positing. The passenger is an imaginative and eloquent invention, but that is all it is until we have some reason to suspect it actually exits. Until we establish a referent, we don't even have a metaphor, let alone a reality. The important thing, amidst the rampant speculation, is to ask one question: "What if we are mistaken about the existence of the passenger? What if there is no existence beyond our material lives?"
If that is the case, then casually dismissing our material lives is the highest tragedy imaginable, is it not? No, I shall correct myself immediately, with a deferential nod to humanity as a social species (a bias on my part). Dismissing the material lives of others would be the highest tragedy imaginable. Given the risks involved - what's at stake, do you not think it is reasonable to require something more than speculation before surrendering the value of our, and others', lives, the only ones we can reasonably verify?
We have to kick the tires, because for all we know, the crash might very well be the end of the road, vehicle, driver and passenger. I cannot take that risk, at least not on behalf of others.
Hopefully, that was not silly, disruptive or off-topic.
I'll respectfully request that you do not class me with maatorc. That's downright insulting. At least I can define a skeptic, pseudo, real or otherwise.
To try to...
Win Powerball!!!
...when the probability of winning is next to zero, is to pay a "stupid tax."
