Are Myths Valuable?

[vulcanlogician]

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 trying to be difficult either. Feel free to reject my thesis, as you did in your last post. Maybe my thesis is wrong. Maybe myths are just like urban legends and other bullshit. OR maybe myths are no more valuable than regular stories. Perhaps you think they all have a moral that could be delivered like the Bob Saget "life lesson" in an episode of Full House. I'm saying there is something more than this. But what is this "more."

Let's examine the myth of Kali. Kali is a feminine force. She is a destroyer of evil. She is driven to stomp on evil and stomp and stomp until it is obliterated.

But one time, in her blind rage, she began to stomp on the god Shiva. She stomped and stomped on Shiva not realizing what she was doing. In some versions of the myth Parvati (mother nature) shows Kali that she is stomping on her beloved Shiva. And when she realizes what she is doing, she stops.

Shiva himself is also a destroyer. But he is a meditative and contemplative destroyer. I often compare Shiva and Kali when reflecting upon the necessity of destruction.

All things must pass. Shiva the destroyer maintains the universe by taking away things whose time it is to pass. Sometimes it is painful to lose things. But all things must pass. That is the wisdom of the myth of Shiva.

The wisdom of the myth of Kali is that sometimes we must stomp away evil, but when we do, it is very risky. We will likely subdue the entity we wish to preserve. So I get a message of pacifism from the myth of Kali.

This is so much different from what people are calling "modern myths"-- Batman and Superman and shit. Fuck no.

If this is modern mythology, then moderners are weak and feeble creators of gods. Kali should be your inward sense of justice, and Shiva should be her moderator.

That is way more meaningful than having an inner Batman who is tempered by an inner Alfred. I'm not say this isn't all that bad. I'm just saying that moderners need to start creating better gods.

[The Valkyrie]

Depends.

They’re either hit or myth.

[Anomalocaris]

Depends.

They’re either hit or myth.

They are always a hit with crowds of low taste and discernment.

[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.

[Alan V]

That is way more meaningful than having an inner Batman who is tempered by an inner Alfred. I'm not say this isn't all that bad. I'm just saying that moderners need to start creating better gods.

Well, you could look at Batman as illustrating the duality of human nature, where someone acts in certain ways in ordinary society but in others when he is trying to live up to his own personal mythology.

So I guess I am of the school of thought that says the popularity of stories is determined by their perceived relevance, so it's no wonder we end up with long-lived myths with universal messages. To me, myths are still just literature, and not proof that such stories derive from a universal unconscious as Jung would have us believe. Yes, we all have our human nature, but is it unconscious? Some people write some stories which become myths. They are lucky in so doing.

But I take your point on Kali.

---

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.

At this point of the discussion, I typically point out that not all habits make themselves.  Many require years of dedicated attention, after which they become habitual.  So consciousness is still a part of the process when considering habits, but at an earlier stage.

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).

I have not denied automated or habitual layers of information processing, but several of them require conscious monitoring to run smoothly.

Attention is key to reasonable behaviors because it makes careful observations and adjusts habitual reactions to them, or selects and employs entirely different strategies, depending on the situations. We are bundles of habits, some of which are contrary to others. We have to be sure to apply the best habits to the right situations, and we can't always depend on mechanical cues.

My alarm goes off and I wake up.  I was not paying attention to my alarm clock.

Here is the problem.  You have a habit.  You hear the alarm and jump out of bed because of your habit, not because you have thought "I must get out of bed now."  But then you realize it's a Sunday, so you turn off the alarm and climb back in bed.  It's typically only when habits misfire that we have do fall back on conscious processing.

Reductionists point out simple example to support their premise, but it is typically in much more complex examples where the obverse can be observed.

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

Yes, I realize.

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.

I have tried to make it clear that I consider the mind to be virtual.  Spiritualists reify it into a substance.  But there is a very clear distinction I want to maintain between reasons and physical causes.  You are saying everything is reducible to merely physical cause-and-effect processes, and I am maintaining that some observably are not. Even if my examples are few and far between, I think I am demonstrating there are exceptions to your premise.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Depends.

They’re either hit or myth.

That's a mythnomer.

Boru

[DLJ]

...
At this point of the discussion, I typically point out that not all habits make themselves.  Many require years of dedicated attention, after which they become habitual.  So consciousness is still a part of the process when considering habits, but at an earlier stage.
...

Sure. Snooker, tennis, learning to use a lathe. I'd veer towards the idea that no habits make themselves... they are either genetically acquired such as breast-feeding, walking, eating and shitting or memetically acquired such as maths, reading, racism and saying "like" every other word.

...
I have not denied automated or habitual layers of information processing, but several of them require conscious monitoring to run smoothly.

Attention is key to reasonable behaviors because it makes careful observations and adjusts habitual reactions to them, or selects and employs entirely different strategies, depending on the situations.  We are bundles of habits, some of which are contrary to others.  We have to be sure to apply the best habits to the right situations, and we can't always depend on mechanical cues.
...

With you entirely up until "mechanical cues".

It's the operational processes that are doing the monitoring, attending, observing and adjusting. It's the management processes that are doing the selecting and strategy deployment. It's the governance processes that are evaluating, dashboarding (is that a word?) and directing towards new strategies.

What do you mean by "mechanical cues"?

...
Here is the problem.  You have a habit.  You hear the alarm and jump out of bed because of your habit, not because you have thought "I must get out of bed now."  But then you realize it's a Sunday, so you turn off the alarm and climb back in bed.  It's typically only when habits misfire that we have do fall back on conscious processing.

Reductionists point out simple example to support their premise, but it is typically in much more complex examples where the obverse can be observed.
...

I'm not seeing the problem.

...
I have tried to make it clear that I consider the mind to be virtual.  Spiritualists reify it into a substance.  But there is a very clear distinction I want to maintain between reasons and physical causes.  You are saying everything is reducible to merely physical cause-and-effect processes, and I am maintaining that some observably are not.  Even if my examples are few and far between, I think I am demonstrating there are exceptions to your premise.

Not quite.

We agree that the mind is not a thing. At best it's a placeholder term or a mass noun. It is the Information Flows and Information Items originating at our data-entry interfaces (our senses) and culminating in actionable information (knowledge).
In other words, the mind is the product of thoughts, models, patterns and symbols, principles and policies, events, alerts, incidents, problems, change options etc.

The mind is not 'the brain'; the brain is just the data centre.

But the processes, practices and activities and procedures that the mind utilises are physical and virtual i.e. biochemical machinery and virtual/logical (if/then, and/or) machinery.

So, no, I am not saying that "everything is reducible to merely physical cause-and-effect processes". But I am saying that the whole system started that way.

[Alan V]

It's the operational processes that are doing the monitoring, attending, observing and adjusting.  It's the management processes that are doing the selecting and strategy deployment.  It's the governance processes that are evaluating, dashboarding (is that a word?) and directing towards new strategies.

What do you mean by "mechanical cues"?

In the discussed example, an alarm clock is a mechanical cue. Remembering that it's Sunday with nothing to cue one externally is not.

Reductionists point out simple examples to support their premise, but it is typically in much more complex examples where the obverse can be observed.

I'm not seeing the problem.

The problem is that emergent properties like consciousness require complexity, so of course they "disappear" when simple examples are all that are considered. If you take a bird apart and it no longer flies, you haven't proven that birds can't fly.

But you seem to have a much more elaborate system to break down all of the processes than any typical reductionist. However, my experiences with reductionists are that they want to exclude the potential causal efficacy of consciousness from their equations, apparently because they think the topic is too "wooy" to be addressed by materialists. I think that approach is irresponsible for any number of reasons.

[DLJ]

It's the operational processes that are doing the monitoring, attending, observing and adjusting.  It's the management processes that are doing the selecting and strategy deployment.  It's the governance processes that are evaluating, dashboarding (is that a word?) and directing towards new strategies.

What do you mean by "mechanical cues"?

In the discussed example, an alarm clock is a mechanical cue.  Remembering that it's Sunday with nothing to cue one externally is not.
...

Ah, OK.  Sorry, I should have twigged that.  Got it now.

Actually we agree.  This example refers to events+alerts.  The external alert (the alarm clock or the pungent smoke) triggers the Event process (flow diagram available on request) but yes, there are also internally generated alerts e.g. hunger, some of which may not register on the governance dashboard... which is why I went to kitchen and opened the fridge door but couldn't remember getting there.

Technically, the latter would be a capacity-related event (and a correlating threshold alert).

Back to the topic on mythology, see my earlier comment regarding other kinds of events/alerts, post #19.

I'm not seeing the problem.

The problem is that emergent properties like consciousness require complexity, so of course they "disappear" when simple examples are all that are considered.  If you take a bird apart and it no longer flies, you haven't proven that birds can't fly.

But you seem to have a much more elaborate system to break down all of the processes than any typical reductionist.  However, my experiences with reductionists are that they want to exclude the potential causal efficacy of consciousness from their equations, apparently because they think the topic is too "wooy" to be addressed by materialists.  I think that approach is irresponsible for any number of reasons.

I wouldn't know about reductionists... I've never met one.

'Consciousness' is only tricky because of the fluffiness of the term ... anything from an Anesthetist's definition (sensing / aware) to Psychology's definition (awareness) to Durkheim's 'Collective Consciousness' to Deepak Chopra's kinda fuck-knows-what definition.

It's not so complex from an data/information theory perspective.  It only requires sense-data processing (including correlation coefficients) and feed-back loops and prioritisation.  So it could be said that consciousness is:
The prioritised changes of state which have significance for the governance, management and operation of the phenotypic machine's provision of value to its internal and external stakeholders.  

Or something like that.  

Perhaps it's easier (but not as accurate) to call it:  The phenotypic machine's monitoring system's monitoring system's monitoring system.

[Alan V]

Perhaps it's easier (but not as accurate) to call it:  The phenotypic machine's monitoring system's monitoring system's monitoring system.

You know, I'm really going to have to go back, read over your many different categories, and write them all down to try to see if I can plug them into anything which actually makes sense to me. I'm afraid I'm trying to discuss all of this top-down while you're addressing it bottom-up.