Frank, this answers your questions too.
That's the thing most people don't realize. I mean, unless it's your field of interest and livlihood and thus have really studied the subject indepth, you never get to learn the underlying chemical reactions that account for essentially every aspect of what makes us human. The organization of neurons in the hippocampus for memory and how they are associated with neural circuits in the amygdala associated with our emotions, is incredibly complicated, but it's mindblowing just how much we know about it, how much we can trace a memory or emotion down the the chemical components that make it up.
All the seemingly magical processes behind life, the mind, memories, emotions, reflexes, drives, the idea of self, all of them are at their root neurochemical circuits. We even know the precise structure of many of the chemicals that make this all possible. We understand many of the chemical processes underlying going from a clump of cells to a new "living" life form.
And yet, inspite of all the progress we made, much of it just in the last decade or so (a lot of progress came once we sequenced the human genome in 99, and thus could detremine the amino acid sequence behind many proteins and reverse engineer them to determine their structure, how they clump based on the charges of the amino acids, how they are effected by the flow of ions).
It really does blow my mind. And yet, inspite of how deep into the fundamental processes driving thoughts, memories, emotions etc, that we have gone, all we found of chemical reactions, ion movements following strict laws of physics, from making new proteins to processing food proteins and making them into new cells, and even a new life form, all we see are just chemical reactions following laws of physics. The same chemical reactions that they found aggregated into masses in muddy water when catalyzed by lightning. Over 80 years ago, they found that given enough time, some mud, some water, and some lightining, and some uv rays, can create circular clumps of clay inside of which aggregates many amino acids and even some of the simpler enzymes driving life. No evidence of some magical spirit only found in living things, no evidence of any thing that accounts for an actual mind, or a soul, or free will, just chemical reactions.
Surely Frank, you accept evolution, since it's the simplest explanation for the varieties amount "living" things and there has yet to be any evidence whatsoever of a god that intervenes in our world to create things.
This is the same thing, the simplest explanation, the explanation that doesn't require some entity that we have no evidence for, no understanding of, no basis for, this simple explanation must be accepted as the most logical explanation atleast for the time being.
This is the basis of all science and scientific endevors.
You're essentially argueing that, inspite of the fact that there is no evidence that a soul, or a mind, or free will exist when we examine their underlying processes in depth, inspite of all this, we should belief that these things do exist. This isn't just logically flawed, it's also a dogmatic belief. Just like how creationists argue that god created all life forms even though there is no evidence of god, we don't understand the basis for god, don't understand where this god comes from, and have no reason to believe in a god that created all the variety of life forms, inspite of all the evidence suggesting that different speicies weren't created but evolved over time from one another. Yet creationists ignore the most logicial, simplest explanation, the one that all the evidence suppots, for a different more complext theory that has no evidence to back it up. You would agree that that's dogmatic don't you. That's precisely what you're doing as well.
Here's what we know. We know the underlying neurochemical mechanisms and processing underlying all mental actions, thinking, feeling, remembering, reacting etc. All the research we have points to anything that could be the basis for a soul or spirit or anything like that. Just like all the research points to evolution. It's absurd to argue that giving an explanation of how something works and providing ample evidence for it, isn't sufficent to embrace it over other theories, that have absolutely no evidence of or basis for in reality. There is no evidence that ghosts exist. Yet people believe in them. It's ridiculous for you to demand that one prove that ghosts don't exist. How would one go about doing that exactly? No one can explore every crevice of the universe or even earth and prove that none of them have a ghost. Simply, the lack of evidence for ghosts, suffices in sceintists being able to say that ghosts are figmenst of our imagination. So how is it that you don't see a problem with making the same demand of me, to search every crevice in the universe?
If you think by demanding science to disprove everything it rejects on the basis of lack of evidence is fair, you are logically flawed. You are the one making this theory (of a soul) for which there is currently no proof. Thus, the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders.
Your example is flawed, we haven't explored all of the universe. We have explored all of the brain and body, down to every last gene or protein. Thus we are in a position to say that there is no basis for a soul or of for a mind, or for true free will in humans.
Stop making logical mistakes in order ot prove something that has no evidence to support it.