Unless works of art (music performance) are said to live on inside the minds of those who remember them, as in the saying that no one is truly dead until all those who remember the person are dead as well. So does that "soul" transfer to another human being after the vessel is gone?

While I'm on a roll (of not sounding very scientific)I'll say that I'm curious as to which sci fi movies have used these ideas, (I'm thinking that many '70's movies or something like 790 in Lexx) must have capitalized on this idea. The Byrne exhibit sounds almost Stephen Kind to me although I'm not sure why.

one important element in discussions of the 'soul' is that it is both unique and individualized to a body. but, in fact, one can have something that is unique and not individualized to a single body. consider a 'family' or a 'nation' or 'a people'.

science fiction has always been at the forefront of visualizing (by writing or film) the possible reaches of our effects on people. the best science fiction (non-popcorn category) is the kind that addresses philosophical and moral questions.

The Byrne exhibit was really a lot of fun. The music you create is a lot like David Lynchian electronic soundtrack music. Good for a dark night of reading or writing!

There is a huge problem with the popular interpretation of the homunculus argument. The homunculus argument is that: if pre-twentieth century physics is correct then there would need to be an observer in the brain to observe what the brain observes and an observer in the observer's brain to observe what it observes ...etc.. This is then interpreted as an unimpeachable argument that observation cannot happen in the brain - a weird interpretation when the alternative, that pre-twentieth century physics is false, is a known fact. The homunculus argument is normally used to show that a theory disproves an observation but do you abandon the theory or reject the observation? (see Materialists should read this first)