Hello Sock,
Maybe there is no answer possible. Maybe it would be premature. But is there a problem in raising the issue for discussion and culling what inputs different people and their different perspectives are?
Of course not, that's why I answered your query. It does set the stage though. Your answers and your question are more psychological than they are empirical or scientific.
The question is about the value of a mysterical, terminal "soul" concept for people to value each other, hold them dear, etc., rather than perhaps coming to ever greater understandings of why we are what we each are, chalking up the undiscovered, yet unexplained aspects, to a "soul"? I don't get how coming down on one side of that question or the other gives one "badass" attitude.
Maybe you misunderstood. If the question is not empirically answered and remains a psychological or attitudinal one than my response was a query to those that do come down on the side that
seems from our current understanding to be devaluing of what we have commonly phrased the spirit or soul when scientific our empirical evidence doesn't warrant that complete conclusion. I think that is also a valid question.
You then say this which is interesting,
me: I don't know, I am asking sincerely. Withholding judgment is clearly the most rational thing to do.
you: Perhaps it is if necessary to hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable'.
You seemed to have conceded that we don't have an answer at least empirically one way or the other. I propose withholding judgment in that scenario and you retort that is necessary to hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable'? Huh? Isn't it the person who is concluding that we are just chemical and electric bags of mud that would be displaying a need to "hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable"?
You then in response to my Penrose/Lucas point stated that that presupposes a soul. - Um. No it doesn't.
You then paraphrased part of my response thusly:
So from an individual's perspective, he or she values another more if there remain mystical, unexplained aspects of that other.
That isn't exactly what I said. I said, "I read your question like this: "If a loved one turns out to be more miraculous than the already miraculous configuration of mere chemical reactions is the loved one even more special?" I answer. Yes, obviously. This doesn't mean if the loved one is just a spark plug that they can't be valued or loved and be special - but they empirically are not as "special" as a spark plug with an eternal soul or something more. That is just empirical reality."
You ended with more loaded comments:
mikwut, you seem to disparage that these questions are even posed.
No, I might have implied disparagement towards a certain psychology that would without complete understanding of the answers to your questions still land in a conclusion that would devalue who we are prior to a complete understanding, that in my estimation would be irrational. I also stated that whoever we are it is quite miraculous and beautiful.
That makes me wonder if you've started down this path of analysis before and backed out
Years ago I did intentionally and thoughtfully so.
and now avoid it to protect your theistic beliefs.
"Protect". Wierd. Why do they need protecting from questions that don't yet have absolute or clear empirical answers? It seems your proposal to accept your psychological goading would be more conducive towards your suggestion of my motive. I simply proposed cautionary and prudent thought prior to a conclusion. Maybe I was on to something regarding your questions, they are more psychologically motivated than I originally thought.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40