AB,
I do not understand why you should think a soul needs a controller.
Because it would be subject to the same objection you raise when you insist that our brains require a controller. It happens to be a very bad objection for the reasons that have been explained to you exhaustively here (albeit that they fall on deaf ears) but if you want to insist on it for one purpose nonetheless then exempting for another purpose is called “special pleading”, yet another logical fallacy. Just claiming your conjecture to be "spiritual" to get you off the hook is epistemically equivalent to, "its magic" – it tells you nothing at all.
Your soul is the controller of your conscious thoughts and actions.
And that’s called the fallacy of reification. Just asserting something does not make it so.
It does not need a driver.
And that’s the special pleading bit. If “soul” doesn’t need a controller, then why would brains? You’re just adding an extra layer of complexity here that provides no answer at all – see “homunculus fallacy” if you want to know why.
And your emergent property can have no control of its own since it is entirely derived from deterministic material reactions.
And that’s the fallacy known as the
non sequitur. The “since” is unwarranted as you’re provided no reason to think that self-awareness isn’t an emergent property of our (astonishingly complex) brains.
So what is it that exerts control?
You do.
Do you claim to have no control over yourself?
As you’ve been told countless times now, what we have is the
impression of self-control because that what it feels like. Any suggestion that “free” will is actually free of cause and effect though collapses immediately into incoherence and self-contradiction, however childishly appealing the conjecture might seem.
So let me ask you a question: are you familiar with the idea of a logical fallacy – ie, reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure?
If you are you should also know that a fallacious argument is always a wrong argument, yet your posts here rely almost entirely on them.
Why do you do this? Do you just not understand that fallacious arguments are invalid, or do you think that somehow they can retrospectively become valid again provided their outcome is one of which you happen to approve ("God", "soul" etc)?
If you genuinely think your faith beliefs to be correct and you’d like other people to agree with you, why would you fall at the first hurdle every time like this rather than find an argument that isn’t manifestly false?
Seriously, why?