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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is a scientist that already calculated that we can't know reality (using evolutionary game theory): https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY

I would as well say that our narcicism ensures that we can't handle information well even if it is easily available.

In the metaphysics section I suggested that mind rather destroys information (or realities in a kind of multiverse) than create truth. (see: "Münchhausen's infinity as evidence for immortality")

I propose that some sort of computation does take in the brain but if you mean concious thinking, no I don't believe that. I would say my brain is one of the many brain forms that I can select from the available "multiverse" realities/possible brain forms. Now this will make exactly zero sense until you read my threat "Münchausens infinity as evidence for immortality" in the metaphysics section. I don't expect many people to have the time to do that but if you have you are happily invited :)

Please don't do that. I am a rather shy person.

@I love Chom-choms

Noted, no mentioning of you. I was just looking for a way to say thanks to you because I think you did a great job! It's often the introverted persons who can think best.

Our comprehension of reality seems so shallow if what you are saying is actually true

@I love Chom-choms

It is. There is a scientist who has even calculated why beings that are formed through evolution will always have a shallow understanding of reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY&t=990s The video is 20 minutes long but it is highly entertaining and easy to follow :)

He explains that it is a problem of time: if you search too hard for the truth in the game of evolution you will die as you will become to slow in the task of surviving. This reminds me of you concluding from our explanation that we would only gain all knowledge in the moment we die. It sounds very similar, in both scenarios ultimate truth is connected with death...or let's call it more friendly: stepping out of the chain of causality to gain the full overview.

What I don't agree with is the logic and causes are something that we created just to understand the reality that we can perceive. I think that causes and logic should originate from non-logic and the non-causal because if the source mind contains everything then the knowledge to apply logic and causality should also be in there.@I love Chom-choms

I love that idea, it shows a high level of understanding of the text! I too guess that the universal mind knows and can predict what a logic of causality would look like but does not use it, simply because it has no useful function for him. I think that causality and logic is something you only need when:
1. There is more than one mind (and inside the universal mind)
2. When this group wants to explore the universal mind TOGETHER.
Let us first assume that the universal mind is there alone and has been for eternity. He knows what a medieval landscape looks like but he will as well know how a moon colony in the year 2300 will look like. In his mind he can jump from the medieval landscape to the moon colony in a second without having to give anyone an explanation as to why that should be logically possible. Or he can rewind the time and skip back at same speed. (For the same reason he can as well completely arbitrary decide what comes first the chicken or the egg, the difference does not matter to him). However if WE would interact with time as arbitrary as this major problems would arise in relation to how well we can interact with each other. Take the grandfather paradox: if you travel back in time and accidentally kill your grandfather you should cease to exist in the common reality because you will never be born. But if you are immortal this would just mean that you would go "somewhere else" inside the universal mind. There you would be completely isolated from everyone you have known so far. Or take the following couple as an example: The wife wishes that the house burns down. The father wants the house to stay. If both could make events as arbitrarily happen as the universal mind the wife would travel into a reality where the house is no more and the husband would travel into a reality where the house still stands. Both would be in different realities now and hence could not meet each other anymore. They would as well have no clue to where their partner would wish to be next so this separation might well be final. This is why we need this voting mechanism that not all realities we wish for come true at the same time. And this voting mechanism at the same time creates the logic of causality that connects us and holds us together from the past over the now to the future. The universal mind however can never lose track of us, because whatever reality we choose, this is still a reality inside him. This is a second reason why the logic of causality should not be important to that type of mind.
The Nun is something like a pre-world while the Duat is more the afterworld. I am not an expert on Egyptian mythology but both believe systems could be separated by time too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_(mythology)
Sadly we don't have our own channel yet, but as soon as we have any video ready I will be very happy to invite you. In a certain sense, you helped to author the video - with all the work that goes into the review - so you would be our VIP :) I guess the video will be as usually watched by 3 philosophy nerds only but the least I could do is give a honorable mention to you and Hermeticus (only if you like of course).

At this point I have to admit that the idea to start the video with a joke came from a social media expert that gave the impossible task to attract attention within the first 8 seconds of that video. And it freaked us out too.... Who can explain everything that is wrong with materialism in 8 seconds? So this is how the burger idea was born (would it be less provocative if we choose an avocado or a heap of nuts ?! Burgers are somehow associated with stupidity...) I am as well not sure if a full explanation in more than 8 seconds would be good - because this would be a repetition of what others have already done and youtube, and probably better than we can. We should focus on our unique argument against materialism and make it more clear. What you are right about is that it should be clear from very early on that this is a critique to materialism/physicalism so that the people at least know what they are heading at.

I guess that the idea is more than a thought experiment. A thought experiment as I understand it in this context should be able to explain everything we see as well as the physicalist/materialist model without creating a logic problem. Alias: it could be true but it is not falsifiable. This our model can do but I think it has a higher explanatory power than physicalism. The higher explanatory power lies in the fact that physicalism can not tell us why the Münchhausens Trilema is not solvable by our mind. This is related a bit to a conclusion by Descartes. Descartes used the example of dreams to show that we have no inner sense that tells us if something is true or untrue. In Münchhausens Trilema we get stuck for the same reason; we have no inner sense for what is true so we try to continue to exclude untrue options in the hope that this will lead to the solution. We are so used to the fact that we can not inductively know what is true, that we don't notice that it is something special that would require a deeper explanation - often in science and philosophy the devil lies in the detail. Our model would nicely explain why we can't know things to be empirically true (our thought influences, shapes, and changes empirical reality so at least empirical truth continously changes). Pure logic truths as obtainable through pure skepticisms might be different from that however (example "I think therefore I am").

In a hierarchy everyone has a rank from the bottom to the top. Submitting means that you fight someone till he breaks down physically or mentally. I am not a fan of hierarchies at all ...If you want to know more about this very evil side of us I recommend this article about depression, point six explains the rank hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_approaches_to_depression

The burger is a joke about how materialism would see the origin of mind. But this is not our take on it. I thank you for your critique and will introduce the word modern materialism in the connection with the burger to make the distinction more clear. Our own point of view is that the world is more a form of idealistic monism. Since materialism and idealism are both forms of monism there was potential for confusion here, I haven't thought about it.

You are the first to understand it, yes infinity would look either like nothing or it would look like that what we make of it to not be confused.

"But you surely heard that our body gives us signals that shall enhance our genetic survival and the numbers of our offspring. This signals, for example, happiness and lust have the same effect as rewarding us for creating new forms and new diversity. It's like we can already feel eternity for a short moment. So all our suffering is in reality connected to the fact that we are just a splinter of god, not whole anymore. When evil like in this case is not something but the lack of something it's called privatio bono. Privatio Boni is literally the privation of the good. The concept is used as a powerful defense against the problem of evil"

The last time I explained this it took about half an hour. Maybe it was not such a good idea to try to explain it in just a view sentence. I wanted to suggest that there is a kind of draw in evolution that wants to pull the whole universe back to it's original state - which was an infinitely diverse mind and not as "boring" as it is now. As an analogy: imagine a wire spring, if it's compressed it wants to regain it's original shape at all price. The universe would be like this, it would want to regain it's original shape of infinity diversity and it's suffers as long as it has not achieved it. Because we are part of the universe we will feel the suffering that is required to increase diversity. Is that a better description?

Yes you are right too: death could be about obtaining knowledge of everything (pantheism) but I guess it will only be knowledge of everything in the actual universe we live in. Which is just an example of many possible universes. Since the actual universe is hence smaller than the universal mind, who for example contains all possible universes this would be panentheism.

You gave me hope that I will find a way to make this understandable.

I agree that text has advantages in respect to clarity but this video is directed to the depressive and the overworked too. I have seen a lot of them recently. A video - if it is done well - is more easily understandable than a text when you are down. As due to the lack of "constructive critique" I can only guess what you disliked about the text I will now try to restructure the video so that the more unique ideas come at the beginning and the more familiar ideas (such as monism) come at the end. I hope it will not destroy the understandability of the idea though. That will take time.

If everyone coming in here wonders how this could escalate so quickly: humans are a hierarchical species, they want to submit each other to build a rank. Submitting means being verbally nasty and snappy to each other. Sophisticat and me now both gave nice examples of being snappy and nasty. Once one has understood this it gets boring. Back to the subject...

This is the reason why social media and the internet created the most depressed generation of all time. There is no constructive critique, there is just bashing. People who don't have the time to read the entire text: You are entitled to have an opinion if and only if you know what you are talking about.

I think your point is good (that non-existence is not even describable with grammatics is a bad sign for it to be a real concept). We use a similar argument as part of the video we want to make. I now foresee similar opposition. But remember that it is a youtube video. They want it to have the quality of a university lecture but that will make it so complicated too that no one on youtube will watch it.

If the universe is a life form, it might work so differently that it might indeed have problems perceiving you as a life form.