Argument from brain damage VS Soul
In the traditionnal concept of the soul, the latter is immaterial and supernatural, and
the famous convoluted grey matter is a mere receptor of orders from the soul to command the physical body.
Soul ====(orders)==> brain ===(orders)==> body
But we all know that stimulating or damaging certain parts of the brain results in more or less drastic modification of personnality, memory and emotions. By definition, an immaterial soul can't be affected by physical damages.
However, supporters of such dualism claim that it's still possible the sick person, in himself, has the same soul as before
but the damaged transmitter which is his brain misinterprets the sane information and orders sent by his soul
so the change of personnality/behaviour/memories we notice in a person is somehow illusory, in fact he's still aware of himself and of his bad state but cannot intervene to make his body say "I'm fine! I didn't forget such and such things actually! i'm not the zombie-like person you see!"
So are their counter-argument against brain damage argument valid?