I Am the Body

From experience thought arises and from thought, experience interpreted. And there is a belief that interpretation of experience is experience itself.

So do I believe that I am the body and mind: but that is merely interpretation of experience. On closer observation, "I am the body and mind" is a circular argument:

1. There is the observation nuances in experience in the first place. 
2. Part of this experience is cognised and associated to the thought "body".
3. Then the criteria of body, which are drawn from experience, are used to recognise body and determine its existence.

In other words: what tells me that the statement "the laptop is know by proxy of the body, therefore the body is what I am" is correct? What / who has made this rule? Is there any part of direct experience which provides this rule? How is this rule more valid than "there is sight of laptop, therefore laptop is what I am?".

So understanding of experience is not so much drawn from experience as it is projected on experience. But again, because thought is experience too, this (false) understanding is experience as well.

So am I the body? There is no more evidence that I am the body than the laptop, if I am to leave the "rules" to which I consent without prior scrutiny.