Are Myths Valuable?

[Alan V]

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'.

There are certainly degrees of reasoning abilities, which make the question more difficult to address. "Using thinking tools rather than instincts" works for me, though I refer to thinking tools as the symbolic processing of information.

the mind is material process.

Thus "biological determinism" includes the evolution of thinking tools.

This is where I disagree. The mind is a virtual process. That's why I prefer to call it symbolic processing.

I don't think evolution is determined, because it depends on the accumulation of chance, rather than determined, mutations. That allows life to come up with adaptations which are not strictly determined, like information processing. Reasoning is a brilliant shortcut which obviates any need for much more complex cause-and-effect biological mechanisms.

[DLJ]

...
There are certainly degrees of reasoning abilities, which make the question more difficult to address.  "Using thinking tools rather than instincts" works for me, though I refer to thinking tools as the symbolic processing of information.
...

Just checking... did you mean "symbolic processing of information" or processing of symbolic information? Given that symbols are an input to the process and aren't stored anywhere in the system.

the mind is material process.

Thus "biological determinism" includes the evolution of thinking tools.

This is where I disagree.  The mind is a virtual process.  That's why I prefer to call it symbolic processing.

I don't think evolution is determined, because it depends on the accumulation of chance, rather than determined, mutations.  That allows life to come up with adaptations which are not strictly determined, like information processing.  Reasoning is a brilliant shortcut which obviates any need for much more complex cause-and-effect biological mechanisms.

And is not 'reasoning' also a cause-and-effect biological mechanism? Trigger - algorithm - action.

[Anomalocaris]

...
There are certainly degrees of reasoning abilities, which make the question more difficult to address.  "Using thinking tools rather than instincts" works for me, though I refer to thinking tools as the symbolic processing of information.
...

Just checking... did you mean "symbolic processing of information" or processing of symbolic information?  Given that symbols are an input to the process and aren't stored anywhere in the system.

This is where I disagree.  The mind is a virtual process.  That's why I prefer to call it symbolic processing.

I don't think evolution is determined, because it depends on the accumulation of chance, rather than determined, mutations.  That allows life to come up with adaptations which are not strictly determined, like information processing.  Reasoning is a brilliant shortcut which obviates any need for much more complex cause-and-effect biological mechanisms.

And is not 'reasoning' also a cause-and-effect biological mechanism? Trigger - algorithm - action.

Yes, but reasoning is both a vastly faster acting type of cause-and-effect biological mechanism, and a vastly more versatile one allowing a vastly larger number of instantly (evolutionary time scale) available responses in dealing with many selection pressures.

Most animals capable of complex behavior are capable of learned conditional response, many derived response derived from learned response.  The animal’s behavior would be influenced by a combination of instinctive behavior and learned conditional response.  With development of reason, the animal’s behavior now tilt very heavily towards derived response deriving from learned response, over learned conditional response and instinctive behavior.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Alan V

How about the mythical constructs of miasma and taboo?

One describes the way in which we can perpetuate and distribute our misery to others, the other that set of things that produce deeply felt terror , disgust, and foreboding when we consider the consequences (real or imagined).

As separate entities from ourselves these two have long been debunked, but as a useful description of our inner selves and our experience they hold as true as they ever were.

Whenever we talk about people making their problems other people’s problems, or spreading negativity in a group, or generally being a bad influence, we’re discussing miasma.

Every time we say never go ass to mouth....taboo.

[DLJ]

Just checking... did you mean "symbolic processing of information" or processing of symbolic information?  Given that symbols are an input to the process and aren't stored anywhere in the system.


And is not 'reasoning' also a cause-and-effect biological mechanism? Trigger - algorithm - action.

Yes, but reasoning is both a vastly faster acting type of cause-and-effect biological mechanism, and a vastly more versatile one allowing a vastly larger number of instantly (evolutionary time scale) available responses in dealing with many selection pressures.

Most animals capable of complex behavior are capable of learned conditional response, many derived response derived from learned response.  The animal’s behavior would be influenced by a combination of instinctive behavior and learned conditional response.  With development of reason, the animal’s behavior now tilt very heavily towards derived response deriving from learned response, over learned conditional response and instinctive behavior.

Exactly.

Dennett, in his recent book From Bacteria to Bach and Back, makes a useful distinction between lifeforms:
"Darwinian creatures - born with their competencies pre-designed and fixed."
"Skinnerian creatures - who have, in addition to their hard-wired dispositions, the key disposition to adjust their behaviour in reaction to "reinforcement"..."
"Popperian creatures - who extract information about the cruel world and keep it handy, so they can use it to pretest hypothetical behaviours offline,..."
"Gregorian creatures - whose Umvelt is stocked with thinking tools, both abstract and concrete..."

Humans are (perhaps uniquely) in the latter group but retain elements of our heredity from the other three groups.

[Alan V]

Just checking... did you mean "symbolic processing of information" or processing of symbolic information?  Given that symbols are an input to the process and aren't stored anywhere in the system.

I would take the word "information" to imply that the input was already selected and processed into a symbolic representation, an abstraction. But if you don't mind the redundancy you could call it the "symbolic processing of symbolic information." In other words, the decisions we make through reasoning, which in turn affect our behaviors, are completed in a virtual version of the world in our heads. We are dealing with the real world only selectively and indirectly on that level.

And is not 'reasoning' also a cause-and-effect biological mechanism? Trigger - algorithm - action.

Not to me it isn't, which is why I make the distinction. The problem from my perspective is that the "cause" is selected by focus and processed into a symbolic representation, which we then respond to. At that point we are reacting to what's in our head rather than what's "out there." We only respond directly to the environment in chemical and physical ways.

To make this clear, think of Magritte's painting, "This Is Not a Pipe." It literally isn't a pipe but just a painting of one, a symbolic representation.

[DLJ]

Just checking... did you mean "symbolic processing of information" or processing of symbolic information?  Given that symbols are an input to the process and aren't stored anywhere in the system.

I would take the word "information" to imply that the input was already selected and processed into a symbolic representation, an abstraction.  But if you don't mind the redundancy you could call it the "symbolic processing of symbolic information."  In other words, the decisions we make through reasoning, which in turn affect our behaviors, are completed in a virtual version of the world in our heads.  We are dealing with the real world only selectively and indirectly on that level.

And is not 'reasoning' also a cause-and-effect biological mechanism? Trigger - algorithm - action.

Not to me it isn't, which is why I make the distinction.  The problem from my perspective is that the "cause" is selected by focus and processed into a symbolic representation, which we then respond to.  At that point we are reacting to what's in our head rather than what's "out there."  We only respond directly to the environment in chemical and physical ways.

To make this clear, think of Magritte's painting, "This Is Not a Pipe."  It literally isn't a pipe but just a painting of one, a symbolic representation.

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"?

I'm fine with term "symbolic representation" btw.

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

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.

[vulcanlogician]

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 think the Hindu myth of Kali says some things about human nature and human essence that behavioral science is only learning bit by bit.

If you want a list:

1) Arachne (Greek)- already mentioned in OP
2) Shiva's eyes being covered by Parvati on the mountain top (Hindu)
3) Narcissus and Echo (Greek)
4) Pandora (Greek)
5) Hercules (Greek)
6) Sisyphus (Greek)
7) How Ganesha lost his tusk (Hindu)

Which one would you like to discuss? 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.

If you want to get specific, let's talk about the Kali myth. Or, if you'd rather discuss another one, pick one of the myths in the numbered list. I think Jung has a point. And I'd be happy to treat any objections to his thesis.

[Sal]

Most of us know that spiders did not originate from a bitter Athena after she lost a weaving contest. We know that the sun is a massive ball of fusing hydrogen, not the flaming wheel of a celestial chariot. Myths are (by definition) false. But do myths have truth value?

Narrative truth is indicative of the value of Judeo-Christian normative truth value they have, and showcases the Dostoyevskian/Nietzschean search for meaning in finding God.[/JBP hat off]

It has the same value as any piece of fiction has for a reader - except for the theists, they think the fiction is true. Some fiction is good and has maybe some moral lesson, other fictions only purpose is to entertain, some both. And then there's bad fiction, which most of the time is written as-if it should be taken as truth, I find for the most part.

Of course, there are tons of stories, yarns, and fables out there. Many of them say something true or valuable. I'm not asking the question "at that level"... 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?

Tentatively yes, I agree. But I stress that this isn't the same as what something like  social sciences or rigorous psychology, neurology, etc. can discover about human psyche. Where, in what story, is the Stanford Prison Experiment given its due about human propensity to submit to authority? I mean, stories given the same narrative truth that is found in psychological examination about human psyche is muddled at best, and inconclusive at worst. I think it's like using astrology to pinpoint the mass, distance and luminosity of a star, when you damn well know it's better explained by astronomy. OK, that isn't the best analogy, but I hope I illustrate what I mean by the difference between narrative and the sciences.

If you do, I think a good followup question is: is it to modern humanity's detriment that it no longer creates mythologies?

I disagree with the premise. We create myths all the time, we just know they are only stories, but we react just as strongly, I think, to a story as the real deal. Well, mostly so.

If you mean mythologies in the sense that we actually believe these stories, just look at the contemporary $cientology, and in worse case scenarios like Heaven's Gate cult. These stuff has impact on our wellbeing, noticeably so.

Given this premise, I think it's actually beneficial that we no longer create mythologies, given our track record - in large part thanks to the information revolution.

I'm not being overly serious here. This is just a "food for thought" thread. I'd like to hear people's takes on the issue (or "non-issue" as I suspect some will take it to be). Science has wisened us so much that we have outgrown the ancient custom of inventing gods. But, though it's a piss poor way to explain natural phenomena, a little part of me thinks that inventing gods might be a worthwhile activity-- if anything just as a creative exercise, that we might through these created gods speak the ineffable.

It is a creative exercise. One that I appreciate a lot. What isn't a good story worth? Film, series, books and games are figments of our imaginations - but I'm sure we're enriched by them.

[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.