Sorry I had difficulties to see how your text related to my complaints about logic at all, this is why I tried to summarize it. If this is not the reason why you mentioned science than how does this relate to my original complaint that evolution would make us thinks in ways that are a) insuficient to understand all of nature and b) evil. Furthermore if logic does not discover scientific truths but just "establishes" them I am curious what part of our mind discovers things. This is ment in now way sarcastic, I always wanted to know where the heureka moment comes from. Since so many people counter me, and often in the same way, I am selective with my time. I did not discover anything in your comment that was not mentioned so fare in the discussion, this is why I did not reply. This is not ment to be a value judgment about what you say. I just see no use in writing down the same replies again and again. I do not deny that I am egoistic too and I will hence from now on only reply if I see a really new argument. Call me a bad person for that if you want, but if you would have read all of the discussion than you would have understood that "limited time" is a very important concern for me.

I always admired hermits :) And I don't think that it is even desirable that everyone thinks the same. If you can be an optimist, I don't want to destroy that, it's a gift. I am more after the natural human narcicism, who thinks that the mind of humans is perfect and ignores all the damage it is doing on nature and other humans than I am after someone who genuinely wants to see the good in the universe. Indeed I am a believer because I still want to see the good (which I however can't find in evolution, or at least in the theory of evolution as it is formulated in the moment). Kants Moral argument for god is the base for my believe. However hapiness can have certain disadvantages that those who are in this state are not aware of. It reduces empathy with sad people, or in other words they can't understand them very well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2014/12/10/why-happy-people-arent-as-empathetic-as-they-think/?sh=3566ca1e2a7f Some of the worst errors I have made in my life where connected to the fact that I was a) rich and b) not arware that the reality of many other people is THAT different from mine.

"limited time" is a very important concern for me. — FalseIdentity

I understand and thanks for your reply. So I will not take more of your time.

Thanks and I am sorry. I indeed did not invest fair time when reading your text a second time for writing the reply, but I should have found a more polite way to explain why I am out of the general discussion. I furthermore had a stronger than usual pain attack yesterday (while writing that reply to you) and this resulted in an unecessarily harsh tone. I wish you all the best. I changed the starting post now too, so that not more people run into the trap of getting no replies to their comments.

Thanks for your wishes! And I hope that your pain was not produced by my writing! :smile:

I apologize for having shown ethusiasm for the ideas of someone else, enthusiasm is the true mark of the stupid, I realize that now. Whoever is not "for" some idea can't be proofen wrong, because he is not making a positive claim. — FalseIdentity

My dear human, what are you apologizing for? I'd be about the last person to blame an interlocutor for enthusiasm in philosophical conversation. I'm fairly enthusiastic in the act myself, whether I'm "for" or "against" a claim.

Do you mean to suggest I made no positive claims in my enthusiastic criticism of Hoffman? In that case you might take another glance at my remarks. It seems to me I made several positive claims, and even left myself wide open to cross-examination. Perhaps you missed those passionate affirmations. In that case, it seems you may have interpreted my first reply about as carelessly as you interpreted Hoffman's presentation.

To answer your question: There are videos of Hoffmann which are more mathematical and present more detail on youtube, but I am only a human. — FalseIdentity

Do you mean thereby to acknowledge that Hoffman was not talking about logic in the video you recommended? And do you mean to suggest that your interpretation of Hoffman's views on logic are derived from some other videos of Hoffman's, in which he does address the topic in something like the way you initially presented it?

After a day of negativism from almost everyone I met (Yes, outside of this discussion people hate enthusiasm too, this even extend to unexpexted areas like d&d) I opt for not thinking anymore. — FalseIdentity

In light of my preceding remarks, I hope you'll consider the prospect that enthusiasm isn't the issue here.

What do you mean by "not thinking"? It seems to me that if you open your mouth to make assertions or ask questions, there's thinking involved in the process. If you form intentions or expectations, or if you act on the basis of intentions and expectations, there's thinking. If you have even a vague understanding of what other people say and do, or of anything going on around you, there's thinking. As you suggest yourself -- logic and perception cannot be entirely divided from each other.

Perhaps you can take a vow of silence. But as any monk worth their salt would agree, it's quite difficult to make progress in quieting our natural powers of thought, imagination, and affect.

Whoever does not think can't make any thinking errors and hence can't be attacked. — FalseIdentity

People are attacked for all sorts of reasons. Bad reasons for the most part, I presume.

I hope you don't think that I've been "attacking you" by challenging your statements, or that I've been "attacking" you or Hoffman by criticizing Hoffman's rhetoric. That's far from how I understand this activity we're engaged in here. I engage in philosophical conversation with something like the attitude characterized by Socrates in Plato's Gorgias:

Now I am afraid to refute you, lest you imagine I am contentiously neglecting the point and its elucidation, and merely attacking you.

I therefore, if you are a person of the same sort as myself, should be glad to continue questioning you: if not, I can let it drop. Of what sort am I? One of those who would be glad to be refuted if I say anything untrue, and glad to refute anyone else who might speak untruly; but just as glad, mind you, to be refuted as to refute, since I regard the former as the greater benefit, in proportion as it is a greater benefit for oneself to be delivered from the greatest evil than to deliver some one else. For I consider that a man cannot suffer any evil so great as a false opinion on the subjects of our actual argument. — Socrates, in Plato's *Gorgias*

Have you ever read this great work of Plato's? I consider it one of the most important philosophical texts I've ever encountered. I mean, it's actually useful, which is a rare thing in the canon. It cuts to the heart of the difference between philosophy and bullshit. And I've found it nearly as much fun to read as slaying orcs.

Now searching up the more scientific youtube videos of Hoffmann would require me to think but a dead mind can't do that, sorry. — FalseIdentity

I'm likewise disinclined to search for more Hoffman videos.

I wish you a good evening nevertheless. You are a very well educated person, I am sure that if you find "ethusiasm" for the subject of the limits of logic and perception (I thinks it's a typical error of reductionism to want to seperate both) you will make progress on your own. Unless of course your enthusiasm was killed by the constant toxity of social media too. Who knows? I am offline. — FalseIdentity

Blessings be upon you, FalseIdentity. May you find peace, love, and freedom in this life.

You seem a bright and passionate homo sapien with an interest in truth. It would be a shame if you allowed the shitstorm of our social media culture to derail you from your pursuit of wisdom by filling your heart with toxic emotion, or your head with all sorts of nonsense.

Indeed I am a believer because I still want to see the good (which I however can't find in evolution, or at least in the theory of evolution as it is formulated in the moment). — FalseIdentity

Several years ago, I wrote an essay -- based on my work-in-progress personal worldview, Enformationism -- which was intended to be an update to the current state of Evolution theory, combined with Information & Quantum theory. It was also presented as an alternative to the Intelligent Design theories based on the Genesis myth. It combines the basics of Darwinian theory with later developments, including Evolutionary Programming, which combines computer Logic with a randomized heuristic (trial & error) method of gradually evolving an optimum solution to a specified problem.

Of course, it's not a divine revelation, just a novel way to think about how we got from Big Bang (the creation event) to the emergence of Life & Mind from Matter & Energy plus Information. I haven't revised the essay with the later developments of my philosophical worldview. But it was a crude attempt to offset the afterlife-optimism (deferred gratification) of the Judeo-Christian myth, and the make-the-best-of-a-bad-situation pragmatism of the Existentialism solution to the problem of Evil.

It doesn't make any promises for personal salvation. But it does offer reasons for viewing Evolution as an upward trend in the arc of an expanding universe. "I suppose we can do what all human societies have done before us: use the myth as a map to guide us through the wilderness of this wacky world." Maybe it will help you to offset the cynicism & pessimism of current popular culture. :smile:

Intelligent Evolution , A 21st Century Creation Myth :
"Religions have historically
fossilized around an antique world-view,
which is taken to be more true than any new-
fangled notions of science. But a map is not
the territory. And maps quickly become out-
dated. So consider this story of Intelligent
Evolution to be merely an update to older
scriptural and scientific paradigms."
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Optimum :
1.most conducive to a favorable outcome; best.
2.the most favorable conditions or level for growth, reproduction, or success.

No no, I have been ill for years :)

I concur with the OP.

The ethico-logical dilemma: Be logical OR be good.

My witnesses are:

1. The random good person who everyone thinks is both mad and stupid.

2. Everyone who thinks the random good person is both mad and stupid.

An evolved predatory logic must be by it's nature remain incapable to:
1. Understand truths that can not be chased and exploited in a physical sense (which come to mind?)
2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good". — FalseIdentity

I agree with the general drift of your argument. Evil is often about rigid control whereas the good allows the world to be free: instead of possessing life, good shares in its freedom. 'Logic' and science are easy means of control and possession and are therefore prone to serving evil. Evil is control, good is letting go. When evil tries to rigidly possess life it kills it and turns it into not life.