I've tried to explain my position multiple times, but you keep thinking that I'm saying something completely other than what I'm saying. Unless I get in a different frame of mind, all I can do right now is just repeat what I've already said, which would be totally pointless.
Maybe if you ask specific (and probably in order to productive, better that they be narrow) questions about what I've said, maybe my position would become clearer.
I'll get the ball rolling.
Q: Am I saying that there is more of burden to assert that there is no classical soul, than there is to assert that there is?
Q: Am I asserting that the classical notion of soul is in all ways tenable?
Q: Am I asserting that certain aspects of the classical notion of soul might be in some ways tenable?
Q: Does the classical notion of soul equate to consciousness?
A: Not exactly.