Cogito ergo sum does not necessarily lead to a "living soul", which is essentially an homunculus - a separate thing driving the bus, so to speak. I have no problem acknowledging that I think and that I, therefore, exist. What I do have a problem with is the separation between body and mind. Sorry but my mind and body are one & the same in my book. I don't need to create a separate and unneeded concept like a soul or any other outmoded label you want to put on it. I'm a "thinking animal" and I exist as a thinking animal. This "bus" is intelligent and drives itself.
Now, if you want to get into neuroscience and start talking about conscience/unconscious, hard-wiring/programming (essentially nature/nurture), and many other subjects along those lines those are whole different topics. I even put free will discussions in with those nowadays because we have a lot of science to further the discussion. Even in 1975 (let alone 1945) we knew hardly anything about the physical aspects of thought but 40 years makes a lot of difference in today's world of science, especially in the neurosciences.
Pythagoras invented the notion of the living soul within the body, according to Bertrand Russell in his book "History Of Philosophy."
I was reading about this just last night.
I had finished my reading of what Russell calls all the modern philosophers which begins with Rene Descartes, and now I am re-reading for about the hundredth time the whole story of philosophy starting with the Greeks.
Russell's take on everything is unique in that he actively critiques each of the philosophers that he covers.
All histories of philosophy begin with Thales of Miletus, who though water comprised everything. He invented philosophical speculation. He visited Egypt and learned about geometry but did not develop it much from there, taking for granted the Egyptians' observed rules about geometry.
He is followed by others in the Milesian school, namely two, Anaximander and Anaximenes, then the city is destroyed by the Persians, and Samos takes over, starting with Pythagoras, who eventually moves to the Greek colonies of southern Italy after a visit to Egypt, where he first learns about geometry. Then he himself further develops geometry with "self-evident truths" called axioms and from there invents deductive reasoning or logic to derive further complex non-obvious theorems. The word theory is also invented by him.
It is thus Pythagoras who essentially invents the science of geometry and also who invents the notion of a living soul. He said:
"We are strangers in this world, and the body is the tomb of the soul, and yet we must not seek to escape by self-murder, for we are the chattels of God, who is our herdsman, and without his command we have no right to make our escape." These notions all later become very Greek, very Christian, and very Catholic.
He taught that the soul is an immortal thing.
I can see your point since having had 3 surgeries recently (gall bladder, appendix, and throat) that when the anesthesiologist administers the propofol, we immediately become unconscious, and until we wake again, nothing happens, no dreams, no thoughts, nothing.
So you could be right, and Pythagoras together with all the philosophers after him could be wrong.
Philosophy being in between religion and science, according to Russell, I am not sure what is the philosophical solution to this mystery.
Should one then lean towards science and say there is nothing after death? Or lean towards religion and say there is?
Leaning towards science is technical methodological philosophy. Leaning towards religion is romantic philosophy.
Ethics is pragmatic philosophy and is between the other two.
I, similar to Pythagoras, infer that there is a God or God(s) and that they shepherd us from a long distance off.
I further infer that these God(s) are in the business of creation.
That They have created other God(s) like themselves and at least one Goddess, thus the Holy Trinity and Holy Mary Mother Of Christ are spoken of in the Greek New Testament and in the Catholic catechisms.
That They have created us in the process of creating new God(s) -- this being all inductive reasoning from the stories out of the Greek New Testament compared with the One Lonely God of the Hebrew Old Testament.
But philosophy cannot deduct or prove much of anything other than that we ourselves obviously exists here and now, because we think, and that it is a very safe 100% probability that others exist just like us here on this planet who also think.
Where we go is only an inferred guess. It requires veering away from the middle of philosophy towards one of the other two extremes.