It seems that the two are distinct in some way, and not necessarily one thing, at least from a philosophical perspective. Rather than being represented as just one whole, it behaves as though it were two unified parts. One is perfect and the other is imperfect. You can think about it empirically. Take for instance the human eye. Never in the history of man has the human eye failed to report to the brain what is happening in the outside world for a single instant. Assuming that the eye is intact, it will never fail to go against its function, which is to take light and send it to the brain to convert into images. The eye is perfect in its function. Even if someone needed glasses, it still works perfectly within its own capacity, even though it is inferior to perhaps another eye. You can have a perfect set of binoculars, but you can't expect it to see footprints on the moon.

Now, what is imperfect is our perception of what the eye sees. For instance, your eye may see an invisible wall, or it may see a camouflaged man, but that does not  mean that you yourself will comprehend the invisible wall or the camouflaged man. You will most likely miss it. You will probably falter in your perception; make error.

Even the brain seems to have its own kind of perfection. So long as it is not destroyed or rendered useless, it will carry out its function according to the will of the person. It will never think "4" when you explicitly comprehended "5." The chemistry of your body will always be correct according to its capacity. Blood will never stop moving unless it is blocked. Your arm will always behave as commanded unless the neural connections are broken. The body is perfect. And yet, the mind can err. 2+2 does not always equal 4 for the mind. Our body may trip while walking at times, but that is only because of a computational error from the mind. Why is one perfect, and the other imperfect? Does that mean that the two are separate, but unified? Is it possible that the mind is more than something empirical, since it sometimes behaves in a way that is very much unlike the empirically perfect body?
What do you make of this?

The mind and body are clearly separate parts, one material, one spiritual. They have different natures, one temporal, one eternal. The fact that the soul can exist entirely without the body supports this too.

Actually, though, BOTH are "imperfect" now, since the fall of Adam and Eve. The soul is now "imperfect" because it is corrupted by our sins. The body, because of the other punishments mankind received for the fall of the first parents. Originally, we can suspect that both were perfect, humanly speaking... that is, perfect according to the character or nature of a human being's capacity for perfection. Obviously, even a perfect human being is infinitely below the perfect God. (Like the old, thimble's full, cup's full, but both are equally "full" thing. The thimble is perfectly full, and so's the cup, but... obviously the capacity is FAR different!)

After the fall, sadly, that condition of human perfection came to an end. But of course, after purgatory, our sins will be all gone, and after the resurrection of the body, our bodies will be perfect and immortal, too.

What I"m kind of getting at is that the body is perfect in that it can never go against its function. The ear can never stop hearing so long as it is intact. It cannot simply choose to stop hearing.
The mind, however, seems to have the...ability, for lack of better word....to go against its function. I suppose the question needs to be asked as to what exactly the mind's function IS, but you kind of get an intuitive feel that the mind does go against its function at times.
I'm sort of looking at this from a perspective that builds up to the idea that there must be something beyond this world, that we are not just a bunch of atoms. I am not an agnostic, I thought it would be fun to think of an alternative way to conclude the existence of God.