Are Myths Valuable?

[DLJ]

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.
...

I see what you're getting at but that may have been a weak example.  With practice, in our formative years, much of maths, e.g. simple addition, becomes automated. 'Novelty' is the criteria that determines which level of concentrated attention / awareness is required.

If you have ever slipped into a 'flow state' you'll know what it feels like to 'watch' your automated processes at work.  

As an aside, this flow state is what some might describe as an OOB (out of body) experience although to achieve that requires a temporary disassociation of one's 'dashboard' / governance apps from one's body schema.

As a simpler example, when I'm presenting using a whiteboard, I have learned that I should let my auto-self write the words.  If I stop to think (with attention) about how to spell a long word then I will always mess it up.

...
What you are talking about is the automated pre-processing of input from the external world by non-conscious processes.
...

I'm talking about both... initial sense-data and also processed information (symbols, if you like).

This possible comes back to previous conversations we've had regarding what consciousness actually is.  I'll try to avoid the term since it's another of those 'weak semantics' things.

Imagine, though, the set of inputs as also including outputs (products or artefacts) of processed 'thought' in a feed-back loop.

In a longer answer I could expound on a number of different processing-layers (syntactic, semantic etc.) that would make up Popper's World 2 (as described in the thread about Morality that's on-going).

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 yet we do.  We (and the issue fundamentally hinges on what 'we' is), are continually carrying out automated behaviours with little or no high-level attention:
My alarm goes off and I wake up.  I was not paying attention to my alarm clock.
My Operations Centre (automated routines) detect pungent smoke and I wake up and pay attention (I hope).
And why am I standing in the kitchen, again?  I don't remember getting here.

The event/alert causes the attention and then that focus of attention is categorised and prioritised to rank potential actions.  

...
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.
...

Agreed.

...
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.
...

Again, agreed.

It's working backwards... effect to cause ... Then to If.  This is the Incident Management part of out Immune system at work and miscategorisation is very common.

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.

I do understand the difference.  I'm arguing that the mental/information processes are the same at those different levels.

The reptilian mind evolved to the paleo-mammalian mind evolved to the neo-mammalian mind.  
Operations functions -> Management functions -> Governance functions.
(the OMG model, tehehe)

Processing capacity improved and virtual machines (VM) developed but the algorithms are the same.  

If you are arguing for Cartesian Dualism - that the body and the mind are made from different substances, one physical and one magical - then we are on different pages.

But if you are arguing for (I'll have to invent a term) Corpus-Information Dualism then same page are we.