The Garden of Eden and its interpretations

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Cindy B. wrote: As for the notions of free will and determinism, my take on these is that neither exists as absolutes. We are free to choose within certain bounds, from the level of nature and our place in it through every intervening level up through the cultural.

Cindy
The the thing with cause and effect we can measure it and probe it and to a large degree experience it.

Whereas with free will we can experience and wave our hands around and speculate.

The former is built on solid rock, we know we'll never reach the stars but it's fun trying. The latter is built on sand and we can have fun playing on the beach. 8)

excuse my metaphor ... :wink:

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

As for the notions of free will and determinism, my take on these is that neither exists as absolutes. We are free to choose within certain bounds, from the level of nature and our place in it through every intervening level up through the cultural.
Nice Cindy. :D
The the thing with cause and effect we can measure it and probe it and to a large degree experience it.

Whereas with free will we can experience and wave our hands around and speculate.

The former is built on solid rock, we know we'll never reach the stars but it's fun trying. The latter is built on sand and we can have fun playing on the beach.
Cause and Effect= Measure, Probe, Experience= No Free Will=Logic

Implies

Free Will= Speculate=Abstract=No causual relationship=No Logic

Hey Cindy, do you think Jung would have some issues here as well? :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Neoplato wrote:Cause and Effect= Measure, Probe, Experience= No Free Will=Logic

Implies

Free Will= Speculate=Abstract=No causual relationship=No Logic

Hey Cindy, do you think Jung would have some issues here as well? :wink:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Would Jung have some issues here as well?," but I can tell you that in my opinion, Jung certainly had some issues. Just wait until your Jungian studies take you into his personal life... :wink:

Seriously, though, when it comes to Jung and free will and determinism, in later life he collaborated with Wolfgang Pauli, and the implications of theoretical quantum physics came to dominate much of his thinking. As you continue to study his works, you'll see how over time his ideas evolved along these lines.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Neoplato wrote:
Cindy B. wrote:As for the notions of free will and determinism, my take on these is that neither exists as absolutes. We are free to choose within certain bounds, from the level of nature and our place in it through every intervening level up through the cultural.
Nice Cindy. :D
Can you give example of where cause and effect does not come into play regarding free will? And sorry even if quantum mechanics is 'true', our will's are beholden to it's probabilistic effects.
Neoplato wrote:
romansh wrote:The the thing with cause and effect we can measure it and probe it and to a large degree experience it.
Whereas with free will we can experience and wave our hands around and speculate.

The former is built on solid rock, we know we'll never reach the stars but it's fun trying. The latter is built on sand and we can have fun playing on the beach.
Cause and Effect= Measure, Probe, Experience= No Free Will=Logic
Implies
Free Will= Speculate=Abstract=No causual relationship=No Logic

Hey Cindy, do you think Jung would have some issues here as well? :wink:
I am happy listen and debate (to and with) your evidence and logic for free will. But other than we appear to experience it .... subjectively ...... I have not heard any.

I realize this may be a heresy and could be enough get a warning (or worse) from the mods, :( , but has anyone considered the possibility that Jung might, just might, have been wrong in one or even many of his theories?

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

BLASPHEMY! HERESY! THERE ISN'T A CIRCLE OF HELL DEEP ENOUGH...

Just kidding. 8)
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

but has anyone considered the possibility that Jung might, just might, have been wrong in one or even many of his theories?
I love Jung, but nobody is ever always right. He made plenty of mistakes. We just need to take what is good with the bad and go from there, right? He was living life on his terms and he touched on many aspects that few wished to talk about or take seriously. But like the philosophies of Buddhism and much Hinduism, sometimes it takes people a LONG time to catch up to the thoughts....Physics is now gladly acknowledging many Eastern concepts as being valid which were once considered heresy here in the West! Pretty cool. 8)

It was not THAT long ago that it was pretty much universally accepted that there were base particles at the bottom of everything....now it is pretty much universally accepted that this is NOT the case and that it is "energy" which is manifested into form.

All is impermanent. All is without a Self.
All is impermanent. All is without a Self.
All is impermanent. All is without a Self.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Thanks jjI'm not an expert on Eastern philosophies ... so I will bow to your knowledge there.

ut in general science is are descriptions of what we observe. But powerful descriptions, as the descriptions themselves have a predictive capabilities. I suspect there are (were) many eastern Philosophies all differing to some degree? Did they all have the concordance with science, and as science meanders it's way and new descriptions are developed will the concordance ebb and wain?

I'm not in disagreement with you here, I suspect my personal philosophy is quite Eastern. But as Clemsy noted it's funny how each us take Campbell's writing and say it supports our positions, sometimes diametrically opposite positions.

Clemsy ... just a comment on your interest in "why"

for me "why?" is becoming an increasingly a null question.

For me it has to uses, (Why does lightning reach up to meet the downcoming bolt?) and (Why did that lightning bolt kill Al a really good golfer, when Bob, Charlie and Dick could not hit a three iron to save their lives?)

The first asks about the mechanism and the second asks about some ultimate purpose.
I presume you were referring to the latter type of "why?"

First (for me) I would have to determine is there a "why?" and then actually worry about

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

romansh wrote:Can you give example of where cause and effect does not come into play regarding free will? And sorry even if quantum mechanics is 'true', our will's are beholden to it's probabilistic effects.
Perhaps you misunderstood me above, romansh, or maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I think that we two might be on the same page here. I do not believe that the exercise of one's will is ever absolutely free, nor do I believe that all is absolutely predetermined. Limits, what I called "bounds" above, always exist in my opinion, but within these bounds we do have the ability to make personal choices, what some might call an exercise of "free will." As I've mentioned before, I'm the quintessential relativist, and I also believe that humans are very much part of the natural world and all that implies.

romansh wrote:I realize this may be a heresy and could be enough get a warning (or worse) from the mods, , but has anyone considered the possibility that Jung might, just might, have been wrong in one or even many of his theories?
Yep, and should you happen to wander through the "Jung (in the weeds) thread, you'll see an example of my pointing out at least one disagreement of my own with Jung. I will say, though, that as a psychologist who's immersed herself in studies re: "the mind" from within various fields since I was a teen, Jung's analytical psychology happens to mirror much of my own internal experience, and I was glad to discover the works of Jung and the neo-Jungians. One reason, roman, that you hear so much about Jung on this site is because Campbell so often referred to his ideas. Both, in my opinion, offer the best ideas so far when it comes to elucidating the archetypal at the levels of the individual and of society and culture.

Speaking for myself, though, Jung and Campbell are just two thinkers who've influenced my own ideas and beliefs about human nature and the world and my place in the scheme of things. I'm the sort who believes that one is best served by reading widely on whatever subjects happen to be of most interest, including dissenting opinions and alternate points of view, then deciding for oneself what resonates and what doesn't. The notion of swallowing anything whole without a personal investigation gives me indigestion. :wink:


Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Cindy B. wrote: Perhaps you misunderstood me above, romansh, or maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I think that we two might be on the same page here. I do not believe that the exercise of one's will is ever absolutely free, nor do I believe that all is absolutely predetermined. Limits, what I called "bounds" above, always exist in my opinion, but within these bounds we do have the ability to make personal choices, what some might call an exercise of "free will."
my apologies ...
Cindy B. wrote: As I've mentioned before, I'm the quintessential relativist, and I also believe that humans are very much part of the natural world and all that implies.
this I can relate to .... :roll:
Cindy B. wrote: Speaking for myself, though, Jung and Campbell are just two thinkers who've influenced my own ideas and beliefs about human nature and the world and my place in the scheme of things. I'm the sort who believes that one is best served by reading widely on whatever subjects happen to be of most interest, including dissenting opinions and alternate points of view, then deciding for oneself what resonates and what doesn't. The notion of swallowing anything whole without a personal investigation gives me indigestion. :wink:
Cindy
I read the Power of Myth about six months after James died and Pathways to Bliss a little while later. They interested me enough for me to participate infrequently here.
(I must not forget the first thirty pages plus the last page of A Hero with a Thousand Faces. Last page was excellent.
Whatever Jung I know is through Campbell's eyes.
Question even (if not especially) the bits that resonate aswell.

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Why modern science alone ultimately falls short is because it does not address that most basic human need for an existence imbued with meaningfulness...

- Cindy


* * * * * * *

Why not? What is it lacking that prevents it from attaining this goal? How does one go about finding meaningfulness? Your brain is a hypothesis testing machine. Whatever process you take to finding meaningfulness is necessarily a scientific one. It may be full of your subjective experience being cast upon your current experience of reality, but it'll be a hypothesis driven approach (just as all human behaviors are).

The point is that there is no bit of truth that science can't approach. By design. How does one find meaningfulness if not through trial and error and learning? THAT is the scientific process.

- Og


* * * * * * *

Well, I discovered this concept of "no free will" is attributed to Darwin. The main issue (as far as I can tell) is that man is an animal the "appears" to have "freewill"

- NeoPlato


* * * * * * *

I still ask the question do we understand Og's point of view? Only when we understand it can we say yea or nay! I lived fifty or more years happy and certain in my dualistic and free will world. Og's simple question about regression of causes demolished my certitude. For that I am thankful.

- Romansh


* * * * * * *

Much of any behavior is a matter of cause and effect. However I'm just not convinced that there isn't more to the equation. Since I'm language oriented and not science oriented I'm caused to look at things by analogy. The universe is not deterministic. It's probabilistic. Complexity allows for a number of probable outcomes the prediction of which is uncertain.

Og may be absolutely correct. The complexity of which I speak may be just a finely woven net from which, eventually, we will be able to absolutely predict the outcomes of human behavior. However, my nature, for whatever cause, has always been profoundly uncomfortable with paradigms that are locked up tight

- Clemsy


* * * * * * *

My take--regardless of the nuts and bolts, whether a staunch materialist, idealist, or somewhere in between, experientially there's no difference to be discerned. So, ultimately, when it comes to living and creating a meaningful life, all that is beside the point... As for the notions of free will and determinism, my take on these is that neither exists as absolutes. We are free to choose within certain bounds, from the level of nature and our place in it through every intervening level up through the cultural.

- Cindy


* * * * * * *

Can you give example of where cause and effect does not come into play regarding free will? And sorry even if quantum mechanics is 'true', our wills are beholden to its probabilistic effects.

- Romansh


* * * * * * *

I do not believe that the exercise of one's will is ever absolutely free, nor do I believe that all is absolutely predetermined. Limits, what I called "bounds" above, always exist in my opinion, but within these bounds we do have the ability to make personal choices, what some might call an exercise of "free will." As I've mentioned before, I'm the quintessential relativist, and I also believe that humans are very much part of the natural world and all that implies.

- Cindy


The key word I found in following this discussion was not ‘science’, ‘idealism’, ‘determinism’, or ‘free will’. The key word for me was the word ‘level’ used by Cindy.

Ages ago, a JCF associate who was deriding the film What the Bleep do We Know? said, “What happens in quantum physics, stays in quantum physics.” Sometimes a sharp quip like that can be worth more than the entire corpus of well thought out prose of science philosophers and epistemologists. There is simply no easy way to rationally bring together the discoveries of nuclear physics and the discoveries of anthropology into one happy unified theory. And the attempt to do so, even in small ways, even by the top dogs in their fields, has been a big problem. It is sometimes referred to as ‘the science wars’: the war between the soft and hard sciences. The heated debates have waned since their peak in the mid to late 90s. But I don’t think hard and soft scientists have gotten to the point of holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Understand, it’s a matter of prestige – and sometimes research grants as well.

Stephen Pinker, professor of cognitive psychology at Harvard, has written a series of books on language and cognition. I just think this guy is at the level of Carl Sagan in terms of relating scientific ideas to the general public with clarity and wit. Everything I’ve read of his is gold.

Stephen Pinker

Here is a quote of Stephen Pinker from his book The Blank Slate: the modern denial of human nature., that address the problem we’re discussing here of scientific ‘levels’:
P69 Reductionism, like cholesterol, comes in good and bad forms. Bad reductionism – also called “greedy reductionism” or “destructive reductionism” – consists of trying to explain a phenomenon in terms of its smallest or simplest constituents. Greedy reductionism is not a straw man. I know several scientists who believe (or at least say to granting agencies) that we will make breakthroughs in education, conflict resolution, and other social concerns by studying the biophysics of neural membranes or the molecular structure of the synapse. But greedy reductionism is far from the majority view, and it is easy to show why it is wrong. As the philosopher Hilary Putnam has pointed out, even the simple fact that a square peg won’t fit into a round hole cannot be explained in terms of molecules and atoms but only at a higher level of analysis involving rigidity (regardless of what makes the peg rigid) and geometry. And if anyone really thought that sociology or literature or history could be replaced by biology, why stop there? Biology could in turn be ground up into chemistry, and chemistry into physics, leaving one struggling to explain the causes of World War I in terms of electrons and quarks. Even if WW I consisted of nothing but a very, very large number of quarks in a very, very complicated pattern of motion, no insight is gained by describing it that way.

Good reductionism (also called Hierarchical reductionism) consists not of replacing one field of knowledge with another but of connecting or unifying them. The building blocks used by one field are put under a microscope by another. The black boxes get opened; the promissory notes get cashed. A geographer might explain why the coastline of Africa fits into the coastline of the Americas by saying that the landmasses were once adjacent but sat on different plates, which drifted apart. The question of why the plates move gets passed on to the geologist, who appeal to an upwelling of magma that pushes them apart. As for how the magma got so hot, they call in the physicists to explain the reactions in the Earth’s core and mantle. None of the scientists is dispensable. An isolated geographer would have to invoke magic to move the continents, and an isolated physicist could not have predicted the shape of South America.

So, too, for the bridge between biology and culture.

- The Blank Slate, Stephen Pinker, 2002
So the idea, I gather, is to look for ‘good reductionism’ that ‘connects and unifies’ and to reject ‘bad reductionism’ that tries to replace. But I know this is no easy task. The relativism that allows different levels of perspective results in conflict whenever the draw bridge is lowered to decide a real issue. What percentage of the murderer’s behavior is due to biology? What percentage to environment and culture? What percentage to free will?

The problem of ‘levels’ has been around since Eve and Adam – and is not going to go away, me believes, anytime soon.

- NoMan
Last edited by noman on Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:16 am, edited 4 times in total.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Hi Romansh!
Clemsy ... just a comment on your interest in "why"

for me "why?" is becoming an increasingly a null question.

For me it has to uses, (Why does lightning reach up to meet the downcoming bolt?) and (Why did that lightning bolt kill Al a really good golfer, when Bob, Charlie and Dick could not hit a three iron to save their lives?)

The first asks about the mechanism and the second asks about some ultimate purpose.
I presume you were referring to the latter type of "why?"

First (for me) I would have to determine is there a "why?" and then actually worry about
Null, but not void!

And it isn't something I worry about. 'Why' speaks to first cause, as it were. This particular 'Why' has no answer, but points to where thoughts and words can't go. Why does an explosive metal and a poisonous gas combine to make table salt, a substance required for biological organisms to live?

These are questions that science can't answer. One can ignore the question and carry on with no problem. One can call the answer God and carry on with no problem. As Cindy says, it really doesn't matter and I do believe that wholeheartedly.

Complexity. Am I, my subjective experience of 'I', no more than the sum of neural activity?

My feelings are that neural complexity allows something greater than the sum of its parts to occur.

I once said we are points of view through which god can experience the world in unique ways. I like that.

But it really doesn't matter, one way or the other... fun to write about though.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Hi Clemsy ...
Clemsy wrote: Null, but not void!
And it isn't something I worry about.
possibly?
Clemsy wrote: 'Why' speaks to first cause, as it were. This particular 'Why' has no answer, but points to where thoughts and words can't go. Why does an explosive metal and a poisonous gas combine to make table salt, a substance required for biological organisms to live?
I'm not sure about this one ... if we were to look the the very last cause we may get a glimpse of the first? Yes I agree words are limiting, as are our thoughts. Electrons and puddled thinking ... sodium and chlorine.

By puddled I mean ... after a rain storm puddles say to themselves, wow these holes in the ground fit us perfectly, this has to be more than just chance; there has to be purpose to these holes?
Clemsy wrote: These are questions that science can't answer. One can ignore the question and carry on with no problem. One can call the answer God and carry on with no problem. As Cindy says, it really doesn't matter and I do believe that wholeheartedly.
If there are questions that science can't answer: then is there a question there at all and if so will any other method of enquiry answer that question? ... this could be one of those questions?
Clemsy wrote: Complexity. Am I, my subjective experience of 'I', no more than the sum of neural activity?
My feelings are that neural complexity allows something greater than the sum of its parts to occur.
I used to believe in synergy, eventually I realized it was simply a lack of understanding/knowledge on my part.
Clemsy wrote:Are you no more than sum of your neural activity.
Of course not, you are your neural activity plus all the forces the universe can possibly bring to bear on 'you'. Funny those exact same universal forces are bearing down on me too, it's just our locations and perspectives are different.
Clemsy wrote: I once said we are points of view through which god can experience the world in unique ways. I like that.
Nice! ... a metaphor I hope ... :roll:
Clemsy wrote: But it really doesn't matter, one way or the other... fun to write about though.
I agree it's fun, and ultimately it does not matter ... but not having a good grasp on these two key elements (and possibly free will lack off) can lead to some miserable spots in between ..... :joke: sort of

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

possibly?
No, really. I don't worry about it. What's there to worry about other than being a teacher with two and a half months before the next paycheck?
If there are questions that science can't answer: then is there a question there at all and if so will any other method of enquiry answer that question? ... this could be one of those questions?
My wife and I used to play a game. The game consisted of taking any situation and asking why? Every situation, if one is clever, brings one to the Big Bang. Then there's the final Why? Consider it a koan.
I used to believe in synergy, eventually I realized it was simply a lack of understanding/knowledge on my part.
Synergy:
1.combined action or functioning; synergism.
2.the cooperative action of two or more muscles, nerves, or the like.
3.the cooperative action of two or more stimuli or drugs.
:?
Clemsy wrote:
Are you no more than sum of your neural activity.
Of course not,
Oh well. I am!
Nice! ... a metaphor I hope ...
Absolutely, yet not at all. Another koan I'm afraid.
I agree it's fun, and ultimately it does not matter ... but not having a good grasp on these two key elements (and possibly free will lack off) can lead to some miserable spots in between ...
If it's fun and doesn't matter, taking it too seriously is just silly! Can lead to all kinds of "Haruumphing!" and "I say!" :lol:
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

I can see you are not taking this too seriously. :D

But I do enjoy learning and "education" ...hearing other people's point of view. I have actually changed my mind because of discussions. And was introduced to Joe C. on another forum by Og. It's been fun.

Regarding the pay cheque thingy, I'm not sure how it is in the States, But I heard here, the teachers had a choice whether to be paid 12 or 10 monthly. Quite rightly they chose 10 monthly ... now I'd be happy if my company paid me early .... :)

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

romansh wrote:
I still ask the question do we understand Og's point of view? Only when we understand it can we say yea or nay!. I lived fifty or more years happy and certain in my dualistic and free will world. Og's simple question about regression of causes demolished my certitude. For that I am thankful.
If Og is right then WHAT makes the Universe turn? If the quality of unpredictability is not an ingredient in the ‘soup’ how come the Universe haven’t disappeared just yet? It might be all just an illusion, but this illusion is happening. No?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Locked