Are Myths Valuable?

[Alan V]

I’d say that how our brains perceive reality/the world and how our brains perceive truth, are one and the same.

Now the question could be how much of brains perceptions of reality, is a product of how our brains have developed over billions of years, vs over the course 20-30 years of individual histories. You might think the bulk of our perceptions are shaped by our short individual histories, but that seems highly unlikely, its false myth often peddled by atheists.

The differences in our beliefs may be accounted for by our unique histories, but how our brains derived such beliefs, are unlikely to be all that different.

Repeated assertions without any new information to support them. Mere biological determinism.

The idea of that we possess some sort of free floating reason, rational capacity, unbound by our feelings, emotions, biological inclinations, etc.. is another one of those commonly peddled false myths. The alternative to such a view might be cynical, but it’s far more likely to be the case than the ghost in the machine.

False dichotomy. And I suspect you are judging others by yourself. Do you read much?

[DLJ]

...
 Mere biological determinism.
...

And... er... what's wrong with that?

[Nay_Sayer]

Of course. Ever since reading the three pigs I have never once built a house out of straw, I mean, How would I know that otherwise?!

[Alan V]

...
 Mere biological determinism.
...

And... er... what's wrong with that?

Nothing, as far as it goes.  One question is, why can't people be reasonable when we have all of our biological needs satisfied?  Do we always idiotically pursue our passions even when they don't have any immediate purpose, out of greed?  Or do we turn to other pursuits dictated by our reason?

Why can't people even be reasonable in our choices of how to satisfy those needs?  There are lots of choices, and many are not reasonable.  The idea that we are driven by passions alone, and that any seemingly reasonable behaviors are just rationalizations of those passions, is far from obvious.  It is a cynical interpretation of other people and ourselves.  We actually observe many people being much more reasonable than others.  We actually observe ourselves working against our passions when it is more reasonable to do so.

How do people make choices when our passions are in conflict?  How do we choose one over another?  How do we even control any of our passions temporarily to give another a priority?  None of that should be possible with mere stimulus-and-response biological determinism, should it?

We lose impulse control when we sleep and dream, so it's a good thing we have dream paralysis.  Our dream behaviors are often emotional and irrational.  The reason is that our dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex is most always deactivated, so we lose access to orienting memories and can't think logically. If biological determinism was true, our dreaming behaviors should never surprise us in retrospect.

I will certainly admit that our consciousness was no doubt evolved to serve our biological needs, but that has lost a fair amount of importance in these days of material abundance.  We more often suppress than follow our impulses, and our judgments are often guided by reason. In fact, reason dictates that we should be very sure to meet our minimum needs in controlled situations, so we can otherwise operate freely.

[Belacqua]

I will certainly admit that our consciousness was no doubt evolved to serve our biological needs, but that has lost a fair amount of importance in these days of material abundance.  We more often suppress than follow our impulses, and our judgments are often guided by reason.  In fact, reason dictates that we should be very sure to meet our minimum needs in controlled situations, so we can otherwise operate freely.

I know Freud is out of fashion these days, but I don't think anyone's put a dent in the basic thesis of his Civilization and its Discontents. 

We have two unavoidable and irreconcilable parts. We are animals with animal needs, irrational and limitless, and we need society based on limits and safety. Both are completely necessary to be human, and there is no way to balance them in any lasting way.

[DLJ]

And... er... what's wrong with that?

Nothing, as far as it goes.  One question is, why can't people be reasonable when we have all of our biological needs satisfied?  Do we always idiotically pursue our passions even when they don't have any immediate purpose, out of greed?  Or do we turn to other pursuits dictated by our reason?

Why can't people even be reasonable in our choices of how to satisfy those needs?  There are lots of choices, and many are not reasonable.  The idea that we are driven by passions alone, and that any seemingly reasonable behaviors are just rationalizations of those passions, is far from obvious.  It is a cynical interpretation of other people and ourselves.  We actually observe many people being much more reasonable than others.  We actually observe ourselves working against our passions when it is more reasonable to do so.

How do people make choices when our passions are in conflict?  How do we choose one over another?  How do we even control any of our passions temporarily to give another a priority?  None of that should be possible with mere stimulus-and-response biological determinism, should it?

We lose impulse control when we sleep and dream, so it's a good thing we have dream paralysis.  Our dream behaviors are often emotional and irrational.  The reason is that our dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex is most always deactivated, so we lose access to orienting memories and can't think logically.  If biological determinism was true, our dreaming behaviors should never surprise us in retrospect.

I will certainly admit that our consciousness was no doubt evolved to serve our biological needs, but that has lost a fair amount of importance in these days of material abundance.  We more often suppress than follow our impulses, and our judgments are often guided by reason.  In fact, reason dictates that we should be very sure to meet our minimum needs in controlled situations, so we can otherwise operate freely.

Do you want the short answer (involving some poetry and poetic licence) or the long answer (involving some information governance theory) or the even longer answer (with algorithms and flow diagrams)?

...
We have two unavoidable and irreconcilable parts. We are animals with animal needs, irrational and limitless, and we need society based on limits and safety. Both are completely necessary to be human, and there is no way to balance them in any lasting way.

Necessary but not sufficient.

I would posit that the balancing act (benefits vs. risks vs. resources; stability vs. responsiveness; open vs. closed; performance vs. conformance; control vs. alignment etc.) is what it means to be human.

[Alan V]

I would posit that the balancing act (benefits vs. risks vs. resources; stability vs. responsiveness; open vs. closed; performance vs. conformance; control vs. alignment etc.) is what it means to be human.

In other words, reason.

Given what I have previously read of what you have posted, I would like to hear your short answer first. That way I can see if I understand it well enough to hear your long answer. I most likely wouldn't understand your even longer answer at all.

---

I mean something more like C.G. Jung meant. Jung thought that by examining ancient myths, one may find profound truths concerning the "inner reality" of the human psyche. Do you agree with Jung here?

I don't agree with Jung.  I suspect it's mindgames all the way down.

Can you give us an example of what you consider a valuable myth?  I think it might be helpful to work from specific examples.

---

I know Freud is out of fashion these days, but I don't think anyone's put a dent in the basic thesis of his Civilization and its Discontents.

We have two unavoidable and irreconcilable parts. We are animals with animal needs, irrational and limitless, and we need society based on limits and safety. Both are completely necessary to be human, and there is no way to balance them in any lasting way.

But our animal needs are limited, in the sense that if we can satisfy them within a limited amount of time each day, we have the rest of the day free for other activities. They are really just endless as long as we are alive, which is not the same thing. That's how they can be reconciled with the demands of society, as we all know from personal experience.

So no, I don't agree with Freud either.

[Belacqua]

But our animal needs are limited, in the sense that if we can satisfy them within a limited amount of time each day, we have the rest of the day free for other activities.  They are really just endless as long as we are alive, which is not the same thing.  That's how they can be reconciled with the demands of society, as we all know from personal experience.

So no, I don't agree with Freud either.

Freud discusses all this in the book. So it wasn't fair of me to expect people to judge based on my sound-bite summary.

[polymath257]

Myths are a type of literature of a fictional sort. So the question is whether literature, especially fictional literature, has a truth value in terms of human emotions and our ability to learn about ourselves.

I would certainly say that literature, including myth, is *valuable* in helping us understand ourselves, our perspectives, our trials, and our successes. Story telling is one of the great qualities of our species.

But I *don't* see fictional literature as having a truth value in any usual sense. It is literally 'false', but that isn't the point. We can learn from fiction even though it is fictional.

On the other hand, it's good to keep 'fact' and 'fiction' well separated in our minds.

---

I also think it can be helpful to 'personify' traits as a means to explore them more fully. Myths often operate via exactly this type of personification.

[DLJ]

Given what I have previously read of what you have posted, I would like to hear your short answer first.  That way I can see if I understand it well enough to hear your long answer.  I most likely wouldn't understand your even longer answer at all.

I appreciate that.  I often underestimate how something that is intuitive to me (with 30 years in the field) is not intuitive to others ... which is why a critique from you is valuable to me.

I've recently enlisted the assistance of a local Psychologist and a Biologist and similarly I'm struggling to hit the right buttons to get them on the same page (that they come from christian and islamic backgrounds (respectively) doesn't help but it's just the challenge I need to take).

My biologist, from University Malaya, is an anemone specialist and I'm picking her brains to discover the appropriate language to describe brainless, "stimulus-and-response biological determinism" in Governance terminology.

For her, I created the following haiku to summarise the problem that you have described below (she was slightly shocked):

I've one job, as a
Heterosexual male;
To impregnate you.

With the obvious follow up question: Why don't I?

And... er... what's wrong with that?

Nothing, as far as it goes.  One question is, why can't people be reasonable when we have all of our biological needs satisfied?  Do we always idiotically pursue our passions even when they don't have any immediate purpose, out of greed?  Or do we turn to other pursuits dictated by our reason?

Why can't people even be reasonable in our choices of how to satisfy those needs?  There are lots of choices, and many are not reasonable.  The idea that we are driven by passions alone, and that any seemingly reasonable behaviors are just rationalizations of those passions, is far from obvious.  It is a cynical interpretation of other people and ourselves.  We actually observe many people being much more reasonable than others.  We actually observe ourselves working against our passions when it is more reasonable to do so.

How do people make choices when our passions are in conflict?  How do we choose one over another?  How do we even control any of our passions temporarily to give another a priority?  None of that should be possible with mere stimulus-and-response biological determinism, should it?

We lose impulse control when we sleep and dream, so it's a good thing we have dream paralysis.  Our dream behaviors are often emotional and irrational.  The reason is that our dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex is most always deactivated, so we lose access to orienting memories and can't think logically.  If biological determinism was true, our dreaming behaviors should never surprise us in retrospect.

I will certainly admit that our consciousness was no doubt evolved to serve our biological needs, but that has lost a fair amount of importance in these days of material abundance.  We more often suppress than follow our impulses, and our judgments are often guided by reason.  In fact, reason dictates that we should be very sure to meet our minimum needs in controlled situations, so we can otherwise operate freely.

If I was going to give the middle-sized answer I first pick apart what you mean by "reasonable" as it's one of those words that's prone to ambiguity/equivocation (... fairness, rationality, cognitive, moderation, thoughtful, balanced, considered etc.) but for the short version I'll go with something like 'using thinking tools (e.g. logic) and not just instinct alone'.

Coincidentally, I've just watched this cringe-worthy interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

At 29:05 to 29:12 Stephen Meyer (of ID fame) says:
"Whenever we find information, and we trace it back to its ultimate source, we always come to a mind not a material process."

What I'd say to him is the same as my short answer to you... the mind is material process.

Or as I put it to my Psychologist colleague ... Does the mind produce thoughts or do thoughts produce the mind?
(He said "both".  He's wrong.  It's the latter).

Thus "biological determinism" includes the evolution of thinking tools.
A designed governance system goes Principles -> Policies -> Procedures.
An evolved governance system goes Procedures -> Policies -> Principles.

Or more simply, 'biological determinism' took us from stimulus-and-response to "doing the right things and doing things right" as we evolved from the reptilian sense-data processing system to the social sense-data processing system to the predictive-modeling sense-data processing system:
When / Do
If / Then
What If? / Then What?

So the really, really short answer to your questions is... all three states exist in each of us and they compete.  And some of us have more finely tuned thinking-tools than others.