Dubious wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:37 am
Greta wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:26 am
One possibility that entities with roughly the same attributes as God is yet to evolve in the future, in which case belief would stem from an intuitive projection, an extension of the human capacity to guesstimate the future, eg. we know without tasting that a sardine flavoured ice cream would not be palatable (Dan Gilbert).
For all we know such like entities could already be here. Whether us guesstimating ourselves into the future or that which may already have arrived, such "attributes" of god is a very different conception from its theistic model which invariably defaults to a personal one-on-one experience containing a "soul" inflection.
That which needs to evolve to attain this god-like stature starts from the opposite direction in the sense of having to accumulate attributes which a God has always possessed forever and onward dividing Itself cyclically into the creation and destruction routine.
It depends on the attributes of any larger or composite mind. One obvious limit of the human mind is our singular focus - I can only look out of my own eyes and can only precariously guess what it's like inside your head. A more advanced consciousness might be capable of multiple foci.
An analogy for this is found in mammalian senses which roughly consist of sensitivity to light, chemicals, vibrations and touch. In early evolutionary history there were microbes with just one or two of those sensitivities, eg. underground organisms didn't need photosensitivity. However, modern mammals bundle up all of those specialised senses into a single, irreducible(?) consciousness. I think of it as bundling - information being taken from disparate sources, filtering out most of it, leaving a multifaceted remainder that is consciousness. Maybe this same bundling is possible with meta-organisation of consciousnesses? To see through multiple sets of eyes with multiple opinions (but with most of it filtered out).
Re: creation and destruction. Without wanting to sound too much like Anthony Hopkins, suffering appears to be key here. Suffering basically chases and coerces life, continually forcing its hand. So life tends to have limited choice but to follow the line of most pleasure and least pain.
In that constant search for respite and contentment, maternal care evolved, which of course had nada to do with alleviation of suffering at the time and everything to do with how many young survived to breed. Mothers of countless species were effectively coerced by nature into alleviating suffering in other organism, their young. There was no punishment for neglectful and uncaring parenting in nature, just that those young didn't tend to live to carry on the torch of apathy. Meanwhile the young of desperately obsessive mothers were more likely to survive the perils of youth and were more likely to carry on those traits than the young of lazzes faire mums.
Thing is, there was never a choice. Motherly love had to happen, and to prosper. And from there came parental care, with those dynamics and the growth of other familial bonds and species-based grouping. There spheres of care were broadening, not for the sake of any morality, but that was the upshot of animals trying to stay alive and feel okay.
In time various species became capable of mercy and kindness, and humans are capable of both these things plus reason. I see these advancements as life's logical retreat from danger and suffering. Actions taken to avoid pain and misery have lead nature and humans to ever finer nuance and judgement. (Yes, there's a glitch in that process at present in human culture, but potted progress is the norm in nature).