We’ve discussed something similar before, and while my subjective experience of consciousness is plural, my concept of ‘soul’ points to something more like the “consensus” I described in that thread, i.e. the quasi-unified result of the consensus-making between the parts that compose my mind.
As you point out in that thread:
That ‘I’ seems to be what people mean by ‘soul’. I am one body, so whatever plurality exists behind the scenes that leads me to act as I do, my acts are ultimately unitary. The pattern in those acts is certainly my ‘self’ as far as other people are concerned; my internal experience of myself is understandably more complicated.
But then when someone experiences a traumatic brain injury that changes their behavior, are they a different soul or the same soul?
The way I see the word used, that is the same soul. From the outside, people perceive them as continuous, and slowly update their mental models of the “pattern of acts” that defines a soul from the outside. And maybe that’s right, because even significant trauma will preserve some parts of the previous pattern. But I it does not seem the same consciousness, it’s certainly not the same mind. If the soul is the pattern of unitary acts, it is continuous even as the pattern changes.
Perhaps tangential: how are ‘soul’ and ‘person’ different?