In the OP you were talking about sentient organisms having a “soul.” Now it seems that somehow you are alleging anything that is alive has a soul. But really, I don’t think your questions or posts so far have been sufficiently coherent to have a worthwhile discussion with you on the subject. Your ideas seem to be very confused.
What is the difference between Life and soul? When one dies we say he no longer has Life, If life is different than soul where does it go?
Actually few Asian religions think of us as having souls. This is a consequence of Westerners imposing their ideas on their translations.
Eh? Can you clarify, please?
A soul is a thing, a self, maybe a little homunculus. The Buddha was adamant about his “no self” teaching. (Look it up).
Buddhism is only one of many Asian religions - you said “few Asian religions”, but I can guarantee that of the others (offf the top of my head, Asian religions include Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastianism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Central Asian Shamanism, various minor animist folk religions such as Ainu Koshinto and Mun). Even if you meant East Asian, I don’t think most of those don’t believe in souls.
And while Buddha may have taught “no self”, this doesn’t preclude the concept of the soul being commonplace in actual Buddhists traditions - Pure Land traditions, for instance, are some of the most popular forms of Buddhism in absolute numbers and they absolutely believe in souls.
“Science” may not address this issue directly, but basic logic, based on scientific observation might be able to provide a meaningful proposition.
Animals in general clearly have a drive to survive and propagate. Because of this, they must have awareness of their environment and some sort of crude or complex perception of the importance of their own existence: a species whereof the individuals do not give a shit about themselves does not remain a species for very long. Hence, the drive to survive begets self-awareness (I am pretty convinced that my cat has a fairly well-developed sense of self).
By that logic, this “soul” thing is merely an individual’s survival instinct, made evident to us by way of our ability with language, abstract reasoning and introspection. It can be directly ascribed a biological genesis, there is nothing mystical about it. Because of this, it is not genuinely obvious that any manufactured thinking machine will ever become “self-aware” in the sense that we know it, but it might also never be possible to distinguish self-awareness from a really effective simulation.
Granted, “science” is a tasty hunk of emmentaler, rife with unfilled spaces. Many of these uncertainties have contained postulations in the past, and many past postulations have been filled in with cheesy goodness. The fact that an enormous body of doubt and mystery exists is not an indictment of science or a reason to stuff crap into the holes, it is fodder for us to continue to spelunk.
“Self” = “Ego” in that context. Nice try. 
Not sure if I’d agree with that definition. Even the most basic creatures, such as sponges & tapeworms, possess a survival instinct. But those creatures don’t have a large enough nervous system to possibly have formed consciousness, let alone self-awareness.
Consciousness simply requires the ability to feel pain, at a minimum.
There is consciousness, or being aware of your existence, and there is sentience, the ability to feel sensations and emotion. I think consciousness came late in evolution.
Pain is one of the more interesting sensations because it seems closely linked to displeasure centers in the brain. We don’t just “feel” the sensation, we also feel sorry for ourselves and maybe experienced other emotions like fear.
I can look at the sky and see the sensation of the color blue, without making a value judgment (maybe a little pleasure unless we are a farmer praying for rain) but pain always brings about a negativity.
Well you didn’t look it up or didn’t understand it. So let me help you. We are not conscious egos or souls or selves. We die and are born anew from moment to moment. Sit quietly and watch it happen as one thought come and another goes, a memory arises, a sensation is noticed, in an interweaves tapestry that does not remain constant and has no permanence.
This is a serious subject; the way you seem to deal with it with cavalier waves of the hand reminds me of the arrogance of the French aristocracy.
What we call primitive organisms function almost entirely the way a machine or a computer functions – by pre-programmed reflexes.
Some time in evolution sentience made its appearance. Animals began to experience the world around them rather than just process incoming data, and began to have opinions (fear, revulsion, attraction). This renders the evolution of complex and flexible behavior possible and eventually led to consciousness.
Frank, your ontology is like an amorphous cloud.
What about the OP’s question or some kind of finality?
Please translate that and give me some specific questions.
C’mon, that’s just one philosophical theory of many, and isn’t remotely accepted universally.
“Arrogance of the…” huh? what? 
Methinks YOU are the one taking this soul shit too seriously.
Agreed. Earlier forms of life operated (and still operate) on tropisms. Insects (by and large) don’t choose their behaviors, but are “hard-wired.”
The more complicated vertebrates have evolved pain and pleasure as punishments and rewards, to induce behavior, but without trapping them (us) into compulsory behavior. We’ve able to act in ways that cause us pain, if necessary. This additional flexibility is beneficial to our survival, even if, in more ordinary situations, we’re well governed by avoiding pain and seeking pleasure.
It’s a question of moving the stimuluses/rewards from the strictly external - pain, light, chemicals - to the internal - dopamine, serotonin, endorphins…we are still complex networks of tropisms, we just internalized so many that it looks like we’re not responding to each and every external stimulus the same way. But I’m reasonably sure that if you count the internal chemoscape of punishment and reward, most of us would be surprised how tropic we really are. I suppose even pain is an internal one, the first to evolve.
That’s something I’ve reasoned out from being one of those people with fucked-up serotonin production, and observing how SSRI changed my actual behaviour - I am, evidently, quite the slave to my internal chemical make-up.
My point was merely that belief in the soul is not nearly as universal as the OP tried to imply.
I don’t think so. Sensations are not data, nor are they an interface for data. They are something else that still needs a lot of work.
We are trophic, but only a little so; we have a great deal of flexibility in how we respond to things and this has tremendous natural selection advantages.
This is interesting; give someone a dose of a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor for a few weeks and in many people things like suicidal thoughts go away, without much really noticeable change in personality (they often report being happier).
One has to wonder at that. It is plainly a good thing, but just what is going on. We can trace the effect of the chemical on brain makeup but how does that lead to the mental things we observe?