Okay then. One post ago you have paraphrazed me i though you know the topic. So please tell me, where you lost track, and i will try to explain it again.
Well, as I understand it, you're now arguing that for "Spiritualism" to be "Spiritualism", we need to leave open all the possibilities that this could potentially entail.
But that list of possibilities entails literally anything, since if rocks can have souls, then anything and everything could theoretically have a soul, not just that which has a mind, and then there is then no limit to the things that could potentially have "souls".
And if that's the case, then what you're calling "Spiritualism" couldn't possibly be portrayed in Stellaris, since game mechanics necessarily make some presumptions for the player. If rocks are crushed into building materials, then that would very clearly hint at the thought that these specific spiritualists are not actually "Spiritualists" by your standards, but "religious" people who have concluded that rocks do not have souls.
It seems to me that you're just setting up an impossible scenario in which Spiritualism as you define it couldn't possibly be portrayed in Stellaris.
But that can't be it either, since earlier you were talking about how Materialists can portrait Spiritualism better than Spiritualists because they are open to the possibility that synths may have soul.
So I really don't know what your overall position is on the topic, since it seems to change and grow more all-encompassing whenever someone makes an argument against your position, to the point where we're at now, where you appear to be arguing for a purely theoretical, vague form of Spiritualism that couldn't possibly exist in the real world.
You used clay as an analogy earlier, but right now it seems to me like you're trying to take the clay away because clay limits the amount of things you could possibly create. But without "clay" as a reasonably foundation, you can't actually create anything.
