Mythology is a reality

[modernPrimitive2]

I think you may be wasting your time. I don't see that modernPrimitive2 wants a discussion. It looks more like it is either agreement or a never ending argument with constantly shifting of goal posts that is the aim of these posts.

LOL. In analytical psychology we call that "shadow projection". I've repeatedly given you the opportunity to point out and discuss where you see problems with my thinking but you have failed to "show up".

For example:

I have already said that I read it and found it to be unintelligible because of the nested strawmen.

Fantastic. Please point them out to me. Happy for you to do it in that thread if it's easier.

Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[atrib]

Skepticalbip's language use here infers that someone must first believe in the objective metaphysical reality of the ocean in order to interpret empirical data about the ocean. You see the way he has phrased this implies the metaphysical belief in the metaphysical reality of the ocean.

...Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone...

Here again, he infers that space-time as we know it is not a property of human cognition but rather a metaphysical reality.

No he does not. He infers that space time is a physical reality.

LOL. You are too funny.

What is funny about it? Are you claiming spacetime requires human cognition to exist?

Spacetime is a physical reality that can be described using mathematical models. Gods are NOT a physical reality that we can ascertain, they are simply the creation of the human mind. Are you really unable to distinguish between the two?

Science: Look, there's a thing. I will study it and create a model to predict its behavior. I will refine the model as I make more observations and develop more confidence in its ability to predict the reality as it exists.

Religion: I don't know how reality works and I can't be bothered to figure it out. I will make up shit and pretend they are the answers. The answers cannot be tested or changed, no matter how well or how poorly they model reality.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

What is funny about it? Are you claiming spacetime requires human cognition to exist?

nope.

Spacetime is a physical reality that can be described using mathematical models. Gods are NOT a physical reality that we can ascertain, they are simply the creation of the human mind. Are you really unable to distinguish between the two?

Science: Look, there's a thing. I will study it and create a model to predict its behavior. I will refine the model as I make more observations and develop more confidence in its ability to predict the reality as it exists.

Religion: I don't know how reality works and I can't be bothered to figure it out. I will make up shit and pretend they are the answers. The answers cannot be tested or changed, no matter how well or how poorly they model reality.

I think you've missed too much of the discussion or just skimmed over the posts so I'm not going to repeat the discussion that's already there to read, if you want to....

 

[atrib]

nope.

Spacetime is a physical reality that can be described using mathematical models. Gods are NOT a physical reality that we can ascertain, they are simply the creation of the human mind. Are you really unable to distinguish between the two?

Science: Look, there's a thing. I will study it and create a model to predict its behavior. I will refine the model as I make more observations and develop more confidence in its ability to predict the reality as it exists.

Religion: I don't know how reality works and I can't be bothered to figure it out. I will make up shit and pretend they are the answers. The answers cannot be tested or changed, no matter how well or how poorly they model reality.

I think you've missed too much of the discussion or just skimmed over the posts so I'm not going to repeat the discussion that's already there to read, if you want to....

I think I understood the main point of your argument. Gods are real because they exist as patterns of neural networks in the brains of people. What I am saying is that you fail to distinguish between a description or model of something that exists outside of the human mind (spacetime), and entities that exist only in the imagination and neural pathways of human brains (gods).

 

[modernPrimitive2]

I think I understood the main point of your argument. Gods are real because they exist as patterns of neural networks in the brains of people. What I am saying is that you fail to distinguish between a description or model of something that exists outside of the human mind (spacetime), and entities that exist only in the imagination and neural pathways of human brains (gods).

Ok, it seems I have to repeat myself then...

1) Space-time does not exist as something "out there", rather it's a property of cognition. (see this post). This does not deny that there is "something out there" but it's not space-time as it is sensed and then brought to cognition by the human mind. This point is however somewhat moot and irrelevant to the general position of the argument and is best kept to the thread where I posted it to avoid derailing but it does have possible implications for point 3.

2) In same way that our scientific models of space-time and not space-time itself, mythology does not describe the thing-in-itself. We do not say Baba Yaga exists as an objective entity, we say that Baba Yaga is a description of psycho-social human behaviour under certain circumstances. While this seems obvious, it's an important distinction because both theists and atheists would take God to be the actual thing-in-itself rather than a description of psycho-social behaviour. The mistake is obvious with regards to theism, the mistake is not so obvious with regards to atheism because it's like me saying that the drawing you're showing me of space curvature on a piece of paper is clearly not actually curved space itself, it's just a piece of paper, so I will simply ignore science. So I think it's a mistake to simply ignore mythology in this way.

3) If philosophical idealism is actually true then thoughts are objective objects and gods are actually objectively real. Of course there's no point entering into a discussion about this because there's no way to prove a metaphysical position, but it's worth noting the implications if it were true.

 

[abaddon]

3) If philosophical idealism is actually true then thoughts are objective objects and gods are actually objectively real. Of course there's no point entering into a discussion about this because there's no way to prove a metaphysical position, but it's worth noting the implications if it were true.

If my percepts are just my brains efforts to transmit “Something” from “out there” to “in here” and I take those interpretations as somehow objective, then anything I imagine has some objective reality too?

What’s different if that is true? How does a person's life after adopting those propositions differ from one's life before adopting them?

 

[Juma]

I think I understood the main point of your argument. Gods are real because they exist as patterns of neural networks in the brains of people. What I am saying is that you fail to distinguish between a description or model of something that exists outside of the human mind (spacetime), and entities that exist only in the imagination and neural pathways of human brains (gods).

Ok, it seems I have to repeat myself then...

1) Space-time does not exist as something "out there", rather it's a property of cognition. (see this post). This does not deny that there is "something out there" but it's not space-time as it is sensed and then brought to cognition by the human mind. This point is however somewhat moot and irrelevant to the general position of the argument and is best kept to the thread where I posted it to avoid derailing but it does have possible implications for point 3.

2) In same way that our scientific models of space-time and not space-time itself, mythology does not describe the thing-in-itself. We do not say Baba Yaga exists as an objective entity, we say that Baba Yaga is a description of psycho-social human behaviour under certain circumstances. While this seems obvious, it's an important distinction because both theists and atheists would take God to be the actual thing-in-itself rather than a description of psycho-social behaviour. The mistake is obvious with regards to theism, the mistake is not so obvious with regards to atheism because it's like me saying that the drawing you're showing me of space curvature on a piece of paper is clearly not actually curved space itself, it's just a piece of paper, so I will simply ignore science. So I think it's a mistake to simply ignore mythology in this way.

3) If philosophical idealism is actually true then thoughts are objective objects and gods are actually objectively real. Of course there's no point entering into a discussion about this because there's no way to prove a metaphysical position, but it's worth noting the implications if it were true.

You have obvuiosly skipped the basic philosophy class where reference was explained. You see s"pace time" is a midel that refers to something real. Gods is a concept that does not refer to something real.

It is as simple as that.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Ok, it seems I have to repeat myself then...

1) Space-time does not exist as something "out there", rather it's a property of cognition. (see this post). This does not deny that there is "something out there" but it's not space-time as it is sensed and then brought to cognition by the human mind. This point is however somewhat moot and irrelevant to the general position of the argument and is best kept to the thread where I posted it to avoid derailing but it does have possible implications for point 3.

2) In same way that our scientific models of space-time and not space-time itself, mythology does not describe the thing-in-itself. We do not say Baba Yaga exists as an objective entity, we say that Baba Yaga is a description of psycho-social human behaviour under certain circumstances. While this seems obvious, it's an important distinction because both theists and atheists would take God to be the actual thing-in-itself rather than a description of psycho-social behaviour. The mistake is obvious with regards to theism, the mistake is not so obvious with regards to atheism because it's like me saying that the drawing you're showing me of space curvature on a piece of paper is clearly not actually curved space itself, it's just a piece of paper, so I will simply ignore science. So I think it's a mistake to simply ignore mythology in this way.

3) If philosophical idealism is actually true then thoughts are objective objects and gods are actually objectively real. Of course there's no point entering into a discussion about this because there's no way to prove a metaphysical position, but it's worth noting the implications if it were true.

You have obvuiosly skipped the basic philosophy class where reference was explained. You see s"pace time" is a midel that refers to something real. Gods is a concept that does not refer to something real.

It is as simple as that.

So we do not have a psycho-social reality? In other words, in your materialist world view there are no brains with neurological structures that dictate human behaviour?

 

[Juma]

You have obvuiosly skipped the basic philosophy class where reference was explained. You see s"pace time" is a midel that refers to something real. Gods is a concept that does not refer to something real.

It is as simple as that.

So we do not have a psycho-social reality? In other words, in your materialist world view there are no brains with neurological structures that dictate human behaviour?

Now you have to explain how you came to the conclusion that that was the best question you could come up with...

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Now you have to explain how you came to the conclusion that that was the best question you could come up with...

Because I have to reference your idea of reality to explain it to you. I could explain it with reference to the psychological model of Lacan's Symbolic Order and how "the Real" can only ever be represented in "symbolic register" but without a significant discourse in Lacanian theory none of that would make any sense to you.

 

[Juma]

Now you have to explain how you came to the conclusion that that was the best question you could come up with...

Because I have to reference your idea of reality to explain it to you. I could explain it with reference to the psychological model of Lacan's Symbolic Order and how "the Real" can only ever be represented in "symbolic register" but without a significant discourse in Lacanian theory none of that would make any sense to you.

I infer that the chair in my room is real because i see it and i doesnt fall to the fround when i sit in it: it really works as a chair. I infer that the abrahamitic god is not real since there is no evidens of its existens (no test that has been successfully pedormed has been replicated under controlled forms) and because its properties is at odds with what we know of the physical universe.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Malintent]

You are assuming that primitive people have the same cognitive disposition as modern people like yourself. The evidence points to the contrary. For example Eric Neumann discovered certain primitive tribes were not consciously aware that sex resulted in pregnancy (because the cause and effect are not immediately apparent). And yet their deities took the form of fertility gods, implying that there was an "unconscious" awareness in their collective psyche of the causal link between (pro)creation ("creation myth") and sex. Hence veiled in their mythology was the knowledge that sex produces children, despite their naivety. This is not a "need to explain" in the sense that we have inherited a method dialectic or logical reasoning from the Greeks. The tribal people's he encountered had no such need.

That is an odd take on reality - if you believe it then it is real.

Hopefully you won't suddenly believe that you can fly when you are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon awed by the vista. That is actually an urge that some do experience but, fortunately, they are capable of reason that overrides this primitive impulse.

Belief in ability to fly is a common theme in a great deal of the world's mythologies.

Look at the definition of mythology as a narrative storytelling emerging from the psyche rather than simply any "fantastical fantasy". There's a subtle but important difference in what I'm inferring here about mythology being a metaphorical representation of the structure of and process that the psyche undergoes in it's development. Read my reply above to Keith&Co for further elucidation.

The "fertility" myth you speak of is, indeed, a means to explain... It "answers" (as in, "responds to") the question, "Why do women only sometimes get pregnant after having sex"? The menstruation cycle, and the generally low odds of fertilization due to the mechanics of the reproductive process is something not sufficiently understood by them.. so when something so important (generating offspring) is happening "randomly", the desire (the human NEED) to take control, to understand it, is to make up stories about it that originate from superstition (if I blow on the dice, I'll get double fours - Boxcars!)... if I kill a rabbit with a shiny stone, a baby will come (because it happened that way for someone else once..)

 

[atrib]

I think I understood the main point of your argument. Gods are real because they exist as patterns of neural networks in the brains of people. What I am saying is that you fail to distinguish between a description or model of something that exists outside of the human mind (spacetime), and entities that exist only in the imagination and neural pathways of human brains (gods).

Ok, it seems I have to repeat myself then...

1) Space-time does not exist as something "out there", rather it's a property of cognition. (see this post). This does not deny that there is "something out there" but it's not space-time as it is sensed and then brought to cognition by the human mind.

No, it is not a property of cognition. The existence of the spacetime continuum and its properties was only hypothesized about 100 years by Einstein, and confirmed through observations and experiments in the following decades. It does not depend on the human senses for its existence.

2) In same way that our scientific models of space-time and not space-time itself, mythology does not describe the thing-in-itself. We do not say Baba Yaga exists as an objective entity, we say that Baba Yaga is a description of psycho-social human behaviour under certain circumstances. While this seems obvious, it's an important distinction because both theists and atheists would take God to be the actual thing-in-itself rather than a description of psycho-social behaviour. The mistake is obvious with regards to theism, the mistake is not so obvious with regards to atheism because it's like me saying that the drawing you're showing me of space curvature on a piece of paper is clearly not actually curved space itself, it's just a piece of paper, so I will simply ignore science. So I think it's a mistake to simply ignore mythology in this way.

Spacetime and the chair both exist, irrespective of whether we are around to perceive their existence through our sensory organs. Our models of spacetime and the chair are simply approximations of their state, derived for our convenience. On the other hand, gods do not exist outside of the neural network patterns in the brains of theists, that we know of. Big difference.

3) If philosophical idealism is actually true then thoughts are objective objects and gods are actually objectively real. Of course there's no point entering into a discussion about this because there's no way to prove a metaphysical position, but it's worth noting the implications if it were true.

I have no idea what you mean. If you actually have a point, now would be a good time to make it.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

No, it is not a property of cognition. The existence of the spacetime continuum and its properties was only hypothesized about 100 years by Einstein, and confirmed through observations and experiments in the following decades. It does not depend on the human senses for its existence.

No, space-time as we know it is a property of sense and cognition.

Think about a 3D first person game. As a player it appears as though we're walking through a 3D world, we can shoot things, bump into things, maybe drive some vehicles and so on. Now say we code an AI scientist as a character in this 3D world and give him the task of figuring out the reality of the world. He goes about and measures some things, figures out that there is "physics" involved when you bump into 3D objects and knock them over and so on. Then he starts exploring the boundaries of the map. He goes up to the very edge where the mountains and sky are and he finds out the mountain isn't actually a 3D object, it's just a flat image mapped onto a sphere to appear that way from a distance. When he gets really really close to the textures (images) mapped onto any of the 3D geometry he sees they start to become pixellated and really fuzzy. The naive 3D reality that he assumed at the beginning starts to break down and what he sees contradicts his original notions.

As humans we know that the fundamental nature of the AI scientist's reality is actually just some electrical signals passing through a CPU but that knowledge is completely inaccessible to the AI scientist. In the same way as humans we're in the very same predicament. We start with a naive notion of 3D space and as we explore the extremes things start to break down. At the QM level things get "fuzzy" just like the pixelated textures in the game world, at the cosmological scale we find that space is relatively flat and curved like the sphere surrounding the game world and cracks begin to appear - we can't reconcile what we see at the extremes with our original cognition and sense perception.

You are like the AI scientist in our game that is in the position of not ever being able to know the fundamental nature of reality but still you claim that it's a "thing out there" in-itself, it's "real". Yes, in a practical sense it is useful to consider that it is "real" because from an anthropocentric perspective it seems that way, so it is extremely useful to us to be able to predict behaviours and so on, but to make the leap to metaphysical materialism is a mistake epistemologically and by doing so you make assumptions that skew your understanding of other areas of human knowledge....such as mythology.

Spacetime and the chair both exist, irrespective of whether we are around to perceive their existence through our sensory organs. Our models of spacetime and the chair are simply approximations of their state, derived for our convenience. On the other hand, gods do not exist outside of the neural network patterns in the brains of theists, that we know of. Big difference.

There is more to gods and archetypal mythical figures than being merely ideas in the brains of theists. They are metaphorical descriptions of human behaviour and our psycho-social reality. The problem is that you are taking space-time to be an actual thing in itself, which it isn't and comparing that to mythology and using that as a basis to dismiss mythology.

 

[Juma]

There is more to gods and archetypal mythical figures than being merely ideas in the brains of theists. They are metaphorical descriptions of human behaviour and our psycho-social reality.

Eh... That is still not makeing them anymore than ideas in brains.

 

[bleubird]

Um.I have read a bit about mythology.mostly Campbell and Frazier.Being raised Roman Catholic,I have been exposed to a lot of myth.Myth is part of human evolution.
Gods were created to fill the gaps in knowledge.
This thread,as has been stated,is just philosophical masturbation.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Eh... That is still not makeing them anymore than ideas in brains.

Yes like maths and physics are also "ideas in brains".

- - - Updated - - -

Um.I have read a bit about mythology.mostly Campbell and Frazier.Being raised Roman Catholic,I have been exposed to a lot of myth.Myth is part of human evolution.
Gods were created to fill the gaps in knowledge.
This thread,as has been stated,is just philosophical masturbation.

Not that it matters, but no I don't think god were created to fill gaps in knowledge. That assumes primitive cultures had the same sort of rational function that only emerged around the height of Greek civilization. Mythology is rather a pre-conscious conception of ideas.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

The "fertility" myth you speak of is, indeed, a means to explain... It "answers" (as in, "responds to") the question, "Why do women only sometimes get pregnant after having sex"? The menstruation cycle, and the generally low odds of fertilization due to the mechanics of the reproductive process is something not sufficiently understood by them.. so when something so important (generating offspring) is happening "randomly", the desire (the human NEED) to take control, to understand it, is to make up stories about it that originate from superstition (if I blow on the dice, I'll get double fours - Boxcars!)... if I kill a rabbit with a shiny stone, a baby will come (because it happened that way for someone else once..)

Again, I think you are assuming that primitive cultures had the same level of rational function as that which we have inherited from the height of Greek civilization. Mythological images and narratives exist as a kind of "pre-conscious idea". When we encounter a tiger in the jungle there's no need to "explain rationally" - the images of snarls and fangs are "instinctively understood".

 

[DrZoidberg]

My claim is that because mythological narratives emerge from the human psyche (as all creative works necessarily do) they must therefore be both pertinent to the human psyche and in some sense be indicative of the structure of the human psyche. While this may seem fairly obvious or insignificant to some, the implications for religious / lack of religious belief are important because we simply do not live in an entirely rational "objective world". Yes, we may physiologically exist as biological entities in a physical world, assuming a materialist metphysic, but the human experience is decidedly subjective - we live in a world filtered by and coloured by the human psyche. However it seems that individuals are biased to a degree to either a rational cognitive function or an irrational cognitive function and so their subjective experience and interpretation of the world differs.

I think it's easy to destroy this. Pure works of fiction follow the same narrative rules as myths. If you compare real historical events they never follow neat narrative rules of drama. "Based on a true story" means just this. History made mythic. Real history is mostly just random and bizarre.

Once history is made mythic nobody knows what is left of reality. We know that in oral traditions they evolve real fast. It's Chinese whispers. There's no mystery as to why Christian religious myths are extremely similar in structure to Babylonian myths. It's the same stories treated by the grindstone of time. But the gods are new and the teachings different.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Um.I have read a bit about mythology.mostly Campbell and Frazier.Being raised Roman Catholic,I have been exposed to a lot of myth.Myth is part of human evolution.
Gods were created to fill the gaps in knowledge.
This thread,as has been stated,is just philosophical masturbation.

Campbell's work tells us more about the post war west and it's values than any ancient traditions. He's been widely discredited by now. A lot of his work is based on Jungian ideas. Complete nonsense. What Campbell proves is that if we look hard enough we can see patterns anywhere.