I am not a big fan of the word “soul,” the meaning of which is ambigious at best. I prefer the word “spirit” which Paul does a good job of explaining in 1 Cor 15. It describes an existence which is not a part of the space-time mathematical laws of the universe and is thus imperishable, more powerful (not limited by the laws of nature) and not made of the same stuff (molecules, atoms, and particles, all defined and controlled by the mathematical laws of nature). Paul also says that the spirit comes after the physical, and I believe the spirit is the creation of the free-will choices of all living things.
But not only is the highly quantitative nature of life going to make a difference in the spiritual aspect of different living organisms (species and individuals), but I believe that the living organism which is most alive on this planet by many orders of magnitude is the human mind, which I believe to be a physical living organism (self-organizing entity) in its own right. Thus the human spirit is far more alive and substantial than those of other living organisms on the planet. But since the human mind passes on its inheritance by human communication then some of this may rub off on animals with whom we associate.
I dislike most of Plato’s ideas which are strongly tied to Gnosticism. I am more a fan of Aristotle but of course He definitely got some things (like gravity) completely wrong.
I am a virtue ethicist also – one of the things Aristotle got right. As for being an Aristotelian… I thought he was way ahead of his time with an organic philosophy which had a greater understanding of living things than other Greek philosophers. But I never accept any philosopher or theology without criticism.
I think consciousness is a property of life, but the question of whether the mind can be separated from the body is an interesting one. I certainly think they are conceptually distinct and thus separable in principle, but whether this can actually be done is another question entirely. The existence of the spirit is not the same thing. And the one thing the discoveries of science cannot support is the idea of a nonphysical puppet master operating the body. I would see the phenomenon you mention as having to do with the mind being more than simply a function of the brain, and more like something that lives in the brain. But you have it a little wrong. How much of the brain matter survives does have a considerable impact (studies show significant correlation there) – it is just that a lot of the abilities of the mind do seem to be somewhat transferable to different parts of the brain – possible anyway but not guaranteed.
P.S. and the posted article may simply indicate that it is the brain surface rather than interior which is the most important part.