But those thoughts you call "mine", are they innate or a product of your senses?
If they are not innate, are they yours?
The question doesn't compute. What they are and what they are the product of are two different perspectives, both can be true at the same time. To wit, one question asks to describe a current state, the other to explain it by naming it's causes.
All that I can know a priori is that I think and therefore something thinks. Thoughts belong to that which thinks them, and therefore what I think are my thoughts, irrelevant of what the "I" is. If the thoughts weren't mine I wouldn't be thinking them.
And what does it mean to live? A residence? Or a heartbeat, consciousness or both?
Living is an empirical term, it only applies to the empirical world. Consciousness just is. In the context of the quote, "I live in" simply meant "I currently reside in" - it's an informal use of the word. The actual definition of living doesn't really come into it, and we don't have to use the word.
What about that small interval, usually just before death, when the heart stops beating but there is still enough blood flow such that the brain still has consciousness. At exactly this point in time, with consciousness but no heartbeat is the person alive and therefore living?
Or those who have a heartbeat but no apparent consciousness?
Or a myriad of other combinations of reduced consciousness or artificially maintained cardiovascular function?
As far as I am aware, death is generally defined as the complete failure of all functions of the brain. But that's not a philosophical question, definitions are just categories, we can make them up however we want.
When does an embryo gain consciousness?
I don't know. It's a difficult question because it depends on whether or not we recognize the embryo as fully human. We assume other things have consciousness if they look and act like we do, and if we can communicate with them. We recognize the embryo belongs to our species, but it doesn't act like we do, and we cannot effectively communicate with it.
Perhaps you can offer some thoughts?
What if virtual reality was so advanced that you had no idea that you were even wearing the goggles?
Yeah, what if?
Not trying to be facetious here, it's a honest question: Would it matter? Would the world be less real if it is simulated? Would you be less consicous? We only know that we cannot know what the world beyond our senses looks like. It's pointless to speculate about it.
And how do you know it's called Australia apart from what you're told?
I don't, but that's kind of the definition of a name, isn't it? If it's called Australia, then it's name is Australia. Names have no inherent value, they're merely tools for communication. There is no need to verify them or anything else as long as the other person knows what you refer to.
Are your beliefs based around statistics or mythical "certainties"?
Statistics, yes, certainities no. Statistics are a tool of empirical science and therefore provide information about the world as it appears to humans. And since we never step out of ourselves, that's all the information we need to make decisions.
Anyone "certain" the world is flat or a globe?
I am certain that the empirical world is a globe. What shape it actually has, no-one knows, but that doesn't really matter. The point of empirical knowledge is to provide predictions about the result of your actions. This doesn't require it to be either objective (in the sense that it's not limited to humans) or unchanging.