In order for you so evaluate something as either "good" or "evil" you have to create some metrics to allow you to be able define something as either "good" or "evil" and of course it is a given that these metrics require you to use logic in order to make sense of anything. However in order for you to claim that logic itself is either flawed or evil you have to say that some other systems of belief and/or metrics that are used by other people is flawed or evil, if you don't and instead you say that your own system of beliefs/metrics are just as flawed and/or evil as any other then you are undermining your own argument.

in a nutshell you need to be able to point out why your logic, point of view is not as flawed as any other otherwise you are just stating that all logic and/or systems of belief are flawed in some way which is pretty much already known by anyone that has studied philosophy for awhile.

I didn't watch the video. Maybe later.

So my first complaint is that logic pretends to be something that it is not (a universal key to truth - this it is clearly not). — FalseIdentity

I don't know if logic pretends to that, but either way, it clearly is not the universal key to truth. Logic is based upon a gentlemen's agreement regarding it's three fundamental principles. But if you don't agree with any one of those premises, then logic remains the tool for those who do agree.

Are there any thought shools that attack logic? — FalseIdentity

I don't know about schools, but I have attacked it. I merely use one of the principles of logical argument, placing the burden of proof upon logic to prove it's principles. In other words, I refuse to accept it's premises, as it advises that I should do. It's only response, to date, has been "But I (logic) can't prove a negative" (which means logic is based upon something that can't be proven) or "It's self-evident" (which means logic can't see what it can't see, even if others can. Besides, where is a non-anecdotal lesser proof?).

A new discovery in the science of evolution has shown that a logic developed through evolution will never seek to understand the truth, it just learns to maipulate it's environment without a deeper understanding of what it is manipulating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY&t=997s — FalseIdentity

That's not a "new discovery" but rather a purely theoretical and controversial argument promulgated by Donald Hoffman (a bona fide cognitive scientist, if anyone is wondering).

I am emotionally sure my onw logic is evil too, that is why I started the discussion, after a life of watching what I do when I argue I have a very bad feeling about it.
If our logic is evil, we would not be able to proof that by our logic alone, I absolutely agree with that. Or in other words: It still can be true that all logic is evil without me beeing able to proof that claim logically. The falsifiability is broken, so to say. But the fact alone that I can not proof that logic is good shatters my trust in it. Would you drive a vehicle of which you don't know it is save? I would as well deny that it is necessary to posses logic to make sense of "anything" like you suggest. I guess here we maybe have a definitions problem, because you might define logic as thinking in generall while I define logic as a certain method of thinking (cornering the options). If cornering the options (left brain) is the only mode of thinking what is the right side of the brain doing all the time? Furthermore there is at least one information that you know is true even before you start the intelectual chase we call logic. And this is that you are. Even someone who has full dementia and hence can't use logic is aware in some sense that he is. This outside metrics you are requesting for of what is evil hence could come from truths that come from direct awarness and not from logic. Maybe direct awarness is the same thing as a priori knowledge.

What Hoffmann does it's a mathematical proof using evolutionary game theory. If you say there is a controversy about it without pointing out any particular flaw in the logic that is not a logical argument but an opinion.

That's not a "new discovery" but rather a purely theoretical and controversial argument promulgated by Donald Hoffman (a bona fide cognitive scientist, if anyone is wondering). — SophistiCat

I didn't even notice the video but after watching it it kind of just going over what has been said several times before in different religions, scientific discussions, and/or systems of belief.

What the guy was talking about more or less was covered in Dharmic religions several thousand years ago with with the doctrine of Anekantavada or the doctrine of no-one sidedness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

The doctrine is similar to the child's story of the blind men and the elephants, but the doctrine itself is the fallibility of our own human conciseness as well as any religion or system of beliefs we choose to adhere to.

That sounds smart: base the burden of proof on logic to proof it's own principles. We can already see how the principle of excluded middle and of identity fail in quantum mechanics so there is certainly reasons to doubt the efficacy of logic.

This sounds very esoteric and it is: but IF (just as a thought experiment) logic is actually evil are some truths not understandable to us because they need to be protected from us? I think of two truths in particular:
1. What is the first cause of the universe.
2. What is consciousness.

A new discovery in the science of evolution has shown that a logic developed through evolution will never seek to understand the truth, it just learns to maipulate it's environment without a deeper understanding of what it is manipulating: — FalseIdentity

Two thoughts 1) Learning to manipulate the environment is what truth is all about. That's all it is. That's not news. 2) Never trust any insight you get from a TED Talk. TED is the People Magazine of the intellect.

Thanks that is exactly what I was looking for! Apparently when the Jains say that "no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth." this is similar to: the truth can't be cornered (to one option). I am sorry that the video is not to your liking, I found the story about that australian beetle very funny. There is as well a video which goes into more detail of how the mathemtical proof is actually done, but it is very long and less entertaining.

I think proofing by mathematics and computer models that evolution can not even develope the sense organs to perceive truth is news. But maybe that is just me. Apparently what people perceive as exiting differs from person to person

I am emotionally sure my onw logic is evil too, that is why I started the discussion, after a life of watching what I do when I argue I have a very bad feeling about it. — FalseIdentity

Perhaps you have noticed yourself trying to win an argument. That's not in itself evil; it's not even a bar to discovering truth. But if your principal motivation is to win, rather than to seek the truth, you put yourself at risk of practicing sophistry rather than philosophy, or what the rationalist community calls the dark arts.

Being mindful of your motivation is a good thing, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

No this is an important thought experiment for me now: I am willing to throw out the baby with the bath water in order to gain new insights: I will fully explore the option that logic is evil. As this baby is not a real life form I can still undo the act when I am not content with the outcome :)

Furthermore if logic is a product of evolution it always wants to win. Evolution would not develope any skill that is not there for winning. I hence think we confuse ourself when we think we don't want to win discussions. However I absolutely agree with you that for some people the need to win is more urgent than for others.

I am emotionally sure my onw logic is evil too, that is why I started the discussion, after a life of watching what I do when I argue I have a very bad feeling about it. — FalseIdentity

You are right in questioning your own logic given the circumstances you have presented but you can't rely on your emotions to tell you what is "good" or "evil" since they are just as fallible at determining which is one or the other as logic is.

I could go into a complex theory as to what is "good" or "evil" but it might be best to just to leave it as something called a "non-trivia problem" (ie. a problem so complex it might not be solvable) and say that in many ways we are all similar to the blind men trying to "see the elephant" (true nature of reality) but none of us really being that successful due to our human limitations.

If our logic is evil, we would not be able to proof that by our logic alone, I absolutely agree with that. Or in other words: It still can be true that all logic is evil without me beeing able to proof that claim logically. The falsifiability is broken, so to say. But the fact alone that I can not proof that logic is good shatters my trust in it. Would you drive a vehicle of which you don't know it is save? I would as well deny that it is necessary to posses logic to make sense of "anything" like you suggest. I guess here we maybe have a definitions problem, because you might define logic as thinking in generall while I define logic as a certain method of thinking (cornering the options). If cornering the options (left brain) is the only mode of thinking what is the right side of the brain doing all the time? Furthermore there is at least one information that you know is true even before you start the intelectual chase we call logic. And this is that you are. Even someone who has full dementia and hence can't use logic is aware in some sense that he is. This outside metrics you are requesting for of what is evil hence could come from truths that come from direct awarness and not from logic. Maybe direct awarness is the same thing as a priori knowledge. — FalseIdentity

In essence "We do what we do because that is the way we do it.". A human cell usually can be seen as an "agent of good" in many ways because it does nearly everything it can for the greater good of the human body. However if it becomes a cancerous cell it is viewed by us as a sort of "agent of evil" even though it has no idea of how it's behavior is now harmful to it's human host and/or why normal cell behavior was helpful. In a similar line of thought many human and/or animal behavior is done without any thought of whether their actions are helpful or harmful to their environment or the planet as a whole. One of the problems about this is that animals can't understand what behaviors are harmful or helpful to those around them. While humans might be smarter than animals there have been plenty of situations of us not knowing the consequences of our actions until after the fact.

In order for someone to declare one action "good" and another "evil" one would need to be able to both ascertain what the consequences of any actions is and rule out that such actions isn't behavior derived from social programming (such as in a healthy cell or healthy environment/family) or a problem created from a defect in their social conditioning (such as in a cancerous cell or from being in a dysfunctional family). Because of such issues and what I explained above why any determination as to whether any action is "good/evil" is a non-trivial problem, it is best to say that any and all of us are fallible in our efforts to know whether something is "good" or "evil" and that because of our fallibility in knowing such things we have to weigh in such problems in whenever we say someone is doing something wrong or right.

Logic is evil. Change my mind!

If Logic is "evil", hence unacceptable, the only way I could change your mind is via "good" Intuition or Emotion. Would you accept that kind of argument, in place of fallible human reasoning? Perhaps the problem with Platonic Logic is that it is filtered through innate human biases, resulting in cognitive errors. :smile:

Logic is fertile, if there's anything mind needs to be productive, it's the logic behind the reality. Logic can be handled evilly but is not inherently evil.

There is logic in evil, which makes evil resolute. The premise that logic is evil cannot be true for if it were, evil would have no logic.

Nothing could be greater than evil if logic were evil, nothing could be produced, a mind wouldn't be able to understand.

What Hoffmann does it's a mathematical proof using evolutionary game theory. If you say there is a controversy about it without pointing out any particular flaw in the logic that is not a logical argument but an opinion. — FalseIdentity

Excuse me if I come off patronizing, but you give an impression of someone who is not at all familiar with how science is done. What Hoffmann et al. do is what everyone does: they do some research and publish it for their peers to evaluate, tear apart or support. (He also likes to appeal directly to popular media with his unproven theories, which is a crankish thing to do.) Just because the argument has some mathematics doesn't mean that he's provided a "proof." Biology is not a mathematical discipline. Any mathematics in that context would rest on theory and assumptions, and it is that which is mainly in question, not how well he can do mathematical derivations and write computer simulations.

That there is a controversy about it is not an opinion but a fact that you could have found out yourself if you actually did your homework, instead of just watching a youtube video.

I approve of good intuition as an argument in this context :) It could be from aplace beyond logic. However I would love to think more about how this place could look like and why it is protected against logic.

There is a controversy about everything, because logic is ment to make war and gain attention. If you can use logic to gain attention this will give you a survival advantage because it increases your chances to gain a mate or become a leader. This is another argument against logic. Hoffmanns proof is based on evolutionary game theory, so disproof either evolutionary game theory or the assumptions behind his computer model if you want to proof him wrong.

I can't understand why you get so angry by the way. You use a combination of argmument from authority against me (youtube videos have to be denied as a source) and personal insult ("do your homework") Please return to a polite discussion style.

Furthermore if logic is a product of evolution it always wants to win. Evolution would not develope any skill that is not there for winning. I hence think we confuse ourself when we think we don't want to win discussions. However I absolutely agree with you that for some people the need to win is more urgent than for others. — FalseIdentity

This is just a variation on old ideas. Christian apologists (Alvin Plantigna, et al) have argued for decades that if you are a physicalist scientist, then nothing you believe has any connection to truth since humans are just chemicals and matter behaving to an environment and all we call knowledge is just what fosters survival. If human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-evolution model, it follows that there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. William Laine Craig runs this argument too.

lol, pot, kettle?

I am not angry, but I don't respect lazy and incurious people, especially not on a philosophy forum. I have actually looked a bit into this topic, which is more than you have done.

You still do not provide any actual logic argument what is wrong with the reasoning of Hoffmann. There is a further value judgment instead and that is that you have done a lot of work but that I am lazy and incurious (ad hominem). For someone who wants to defend logic this is a sad method. Ad hominem is a rethoric trick and not a logic argument. Provide your logic evidence against the reasoning of Hoffmann here, and I will gratefully have a look into it. But your personal opinion about me is nothing that interests me, to be frank.

Ah Ok, I recognized that this is similar to Platingas Argument (I think Hoffman gives a bit more details on what exactly will go wrong than Platinga who basically just states that things would go wrong in respect to logic). Of course knowledge given by a god could be the outside metrics that was requested as a measurement for such a logic beeing evil too. I didn't know William Laine Craige though. I will have a look into his reasoning, thanks that's a valuable information. In total I got some beating by some members here but comments like this make it worth it.

You're a real out of the box thinker. I can't make a cohesive argument without being logical, though.

The Protestant apologists would argue that logic and meaning is only possible if there is a god who acts as a guarantor for all meaning. Hence the often stated notion that logic and morality are 'engraved upon human hearts' by god, whether you believe in god or not. This leads as to various transcendental arguments and Kant, who was among the first to articulate this view in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.

The punchline of the argument is - God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver. (Thanks Wikipedia)

We can see this theme going all the way back to Plato.

This sounds very esoteric and it is: but IF (just as a thought experiment) logic is actually evil are some truths not understandable to us because they need to be protected from us? — FalseIdentity

That is possible. But it's also possible that, as they say in Maine when asked for directions: "You can't get there from here." I think that it all becomes clear when we die. But for now, we are, relatively, deaf, dumb and blind.

Thanks for the kinder interpretation of what I am trying to do. Coherence is a good point. I guess the only states we know where we do not use logic is that of mindfulness meditation, "mystic raptures" and complete chaos or beeing "nuts". Or in other words: we don't get very "fare" when we try to think without logic. For me this feels a bit like a prison that I can not think well without (this predatory type) of logic. But if my mind is a prison where my thinking capabilities have been limited purposefully (evolution could be a method to limit thinking capabiliies by the way) for what reason have I been put into that prison? And do I want to know the answer :)

I fear you are right about the relation between death and truth. Truth might well be that what one gets when one finally stops to use "stolen life energy" to power ones brain (aka thinking). But even if we can't find ultimate truths in this discussion - and we know it - I am reliefed to know that I am at least not alone with my doubts.

So my first complaint is that logic pretends to be something that it is not (a universal key to truth - this it is clearly not). — FalseIdentity

Logic is the main task for human mind. For me it's the most significant a priori function of humans. So if we ever be able to find the ultimate truth yeah it would be cause of Logic. As every development is made through logic.
Every human obstacle we overcame so far and every problem we solved it, was cause some person used that a priori human ability so well enough as to see the logical solution!

I can't understand how Logic cannot be seen as one of the main keys of our evolution. Not to say the most important one.So I'm really surprised when I see people underestimate Logic so badly! It rings bells to me really!!

the left brain side that is dedicated to logic is as well the the one which is dedicated to hunting). — FalseIdentity

And is it a problem cause??? Of course in primal people the first and most significant problem that they had to solve was food! And their logic dealt exactly with that most important thing for them! I don't see any paradox to that at all. It's only logical in fact!

When we do deductive logic we literally try to reduce options so that the truth (aka prey) can't escape anymore and only one option is left. — FalseIdentity

Not all problems have one solution only and some they don't have any at all. So realizing that, is Logic! And then no need to search for only one option. Cause you understand that's impossible.
You have a strange view of how Logic works.

2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good". — FalseIdentity

Yeah sure. As if everything we humans dealt and invented so far had to do with the survival and only that!

The " good"that you mention is nothing more than a human invention!! There is no good or bad in universe.
So what exactly you expect from Logic to understand?!? What a Non universal existing human" invention" is?!? Well probably our own Logic understands that, and that's why these terms can never be fully defined! It's impossible.

logic must be a prison that precludes us from seeing a lot of stuff around us. — FalseIdentity

Our senses are limited. And our Logic follows our senses.So what more you ask from it?? Even the fact we are able to realize that and understand that there might be more things that we can't perceive that's also logic's work!

You accuse our logic that it is too human-ish?? Well sorry but we are humans indeed!And our minds analyze specific data taken by our senses.
But cause of our mind's a priori ability to search for truth we can even create technology that can drive us see more of things that our senses can give us!!

In conclusion calling Logic as Evil is non logical at all on itself!
And that shows you have a wrong view of what logic is and how it should be performed.

I fear you are right about the relation between death and truth. Truth might well be that what one gets when one finally stops to use "stolen life energy" to power ones brain (aka thinking). But even if we can't find ultimate truths in this discussion - and we know it - I am reliefed to know that I am at least not alone with my doubts. — FalseIdentity

It's also interesting to note the inquisitors oft repeated phrase: "Every question we answer opens up a multitude of new questions."

That means to me that, if history is any teacher, 1. there is and never will be any end in sight; 2. the more we continue in the direction we are going, the further we get from the truth; 3. there will not be a tipping point where we start closing in; 4. we best go back in the other direction, to the beginning, and attack the fundamental premise(s) that we agreed upon (and the questions we ignored) before we set out; 5. we best go back in the other direction, to the beginning, and make sure we took the right track on our way out.

When I try to do all that with my weak and non-scientific mind, I find that where All = A, then A = A and A = -A. That does, of course, violate logic, and it may very well mean that my mind is so open that my brains fell out; but I think "A" is pretty dispositive of all questions that anyone could have. The answer is always yes, and no, and things we can't fathom.

But it is fun to watch the logician and the physicist struggle; and I do wish them luck.