Are Myths Valuable?

[Alan V]

I mean, do you want me to go point by point through a myth and describe its deep meaningfulness along the way? I mean, I can do that if you want. But what purpose would it serve?

It isn't mind games all the way down if you are being honest in your search for meaning. People who claim these myths are literally true, for instance, or use them to become a religious authority over others ARE playing mind games. And (with them) it IS mind games all the way down. But let's forget about these people for a moment. Let's be atheists who are looking for a nonliteral truth in these myths... but a truth nonetheless.

What I was looking for was for you to pick one myth which has been especially meaningful to you, and to explain why.

No, I am not expecting myths to be literal truths, but when you talk about truths to me, that sounds like it applies to the world somehow, and not just to human psychology. From my perspective, all sorts of made up stories can be relevant to human psychology, since humans have such a wide range of obsessions, ambitions, self-deceptions, and so on. Are those the truths you're talking about?

I most certainly believe that individual humans have their own personal mythologies, just as cultures do. But I'm not yet convinced that they are really good for the people who have them.

I'm really not trying to be difficult here. I just don't understand myths except as stories and sometimes as metaphors in literature.

---

I'm not quite following you.  The processing is chemical and physical and we have pattern-detecting cells (grid, edges, head-direction (balance, proximity etc.)) that provide a networked model of reality.  We never 'see' actual reality.  We 'see' (hear, feel, etc.) a set of indicators that form a schema / model.  This model is compared (I know not how but presumably via data arrays) with a baseline model (of expected 'reality').  Is this what you mean by "symbolic processing"?  

Doing math in your head is an example of symbolic processing. You have abstractions and you manipulate them to derive certain answers or conclusions. It's a conscious effort.

What you are talking about is the automated preprocessing of input from the external world by nonconscious processes.

Could you please expand upon what you mean by "the "cause" is selected by focus and processed into a symbolic representation"?

What people typically call "causes" of our behaviors are selected by our own focus, when we could focus on other things. We can hardly respond to a "cause" we are not paying attention to.

And even after the "cause" is selected, it is further abstracted for its specific meaning, which is often a best guess which may have nothing to do with the reality.

So reasons are typically conflated with material causes when they are really symbolic or virtual "causes." That is an important distinction which is maintained by the concept of free will.

If you are talking about filtering (of e.g. significant data events (signal from noise)) and categorisation and prioritisation (impact x urgency) and escalation then I'm OK with that.

If that's what you mean then it's still all biological / biochemical and we are on the same page.  Then all we need is conditional branching (if/then) and we can create the illusion of (free-ish) will.

Sometimes that filtering can be habitual, sometimes special efforts are involved -- for instance, when we learn new skills.

So no, we will not be on the same page until you understand how symbolic processing is different from its material substrate, just as meanings of words are different from mere squiggles of ink on pages.