Thanks for sharing! I think these are probably the lines of reasoning that best bridge from Western philosophical traditions to the Buddhist ones.

Anatta seems to be one of the trickiest subjects in Buddhism, not least because there is a very wide range of theories across the different traditions. Some traditions literally claim nothing exists (the solipsist position?) whereas some are very clearly stating “not Self, not No-Self” ie some middle position that should probably be understood contextually against Hindu notions of eternal self that were the ground truth at the time of Buddhism’s formation.

I think the “traditional” Buddhist position is something fairly similar to Hume’s view as Bundle theory.

Simply stated here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.th...