AB,
Having skimmed through you last few posts it seems to me that you have given yourself a series of problems with your conjectures that you'll have to address if you expect others to take them seriously. Here are some of them:
1. You post often with great certainty about a "soul", but then you retract to claim it to be just a "possibility". This is disingenuous - anything is a possibility - but possibilities about souls, dragons or the man in the moon offer nothing with which others can engage.
2. You continue to fail tell tell us what you mean by "soul". Absent a definition more meaningful than "a little man at the controls, only he's non-material" you remain in the category "not even wrong".
3. You continue to rely heavily on the argument from personal incredulity - a basic logical fallacy. Just because you cannot imagine the answers to the questions that befuddle you does not mean that others cannot, and moreover that they haven't to varying degrees demonstrated their answers.
4. Populating the hole in your imagination and knowledge with a "soul" is your basic god of the gaps fallacy.
5. There's something like 100 million neurons in the human brain. We know that very complex phenomena can emerge from relatively few "stupid" components - when you have 100 million of those components there's no reason to think that consciousness is too complex a phenomenon to have emerged from them.
6. If you insist on your "little man at the controls" conjecture nonetheless, then if you excuse him from needing a decision-making mind of his own that's just special pleading. If your response is, "ah, but the soul is non-material" that's no more coherent a reply than, "it's magic".
7. You arbitrarily decide that other species do not have consciousness in order to fit your conjecture that a god deliberately made us to be different from them. Yet every piece of evidence suggests that they do - many of them are to a large extent made of the same stuff as us, their behaviours mimic ours very closely, experiments with chimps show remarkable levels of language learning, empathy, emotional responses like our own etc.
8. You tell us that you work in computers, yet don't seem to know that some software already mimics a sort of proto consciousness. Relatively simple programming steps can "learn" autonomously and then produce outcomes well beyond anything the programmer envisaged. Games like Sim City for example rely exactly on that phenomenon, and there's no reason to think that more sophisticated software won't arrive in the future that's much closer in its capabilities to the meat computers in our heads.
9. You complain that others criticise you because you don't have "watertight" evidence for your conjectures. That's wrong - you have not one jot of evidence for sure, but the criticisms are much more centred on the various problems I've set out here.
10. Finally, as other have noted you still have a burden of proof problem. It's not enough just to dismiss the evidence against you (however incompetently). Even if you could undo all that neuroscience, zoology, computer science, evolutionary theory, emergence theory etc etc etc tell us, still all you'd be left with is a "don't know". Populating that don't know with a "therefore X" is another fundamental error in reasoning - don't know just means don't know; it does not open the door to any un-defined, un-reasoned and un-evidenced pet hypothesis that happens to appeal to you. For that door to open, you'd need finally to make an argument for this "soul" of yours.
Apart from that though...
