[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Running up the stairs is neither logical or illogical, my reasons for doing so may be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, talking about actions being logical or not presupposes there is act of will going on.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, in the broadest sense, that (A) [(A) An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests] is a possibility, if you have anything further to prod me with, I'm listening. If we start with this framing -
(1) all my actions must be in my interests.
(2) I choose Action X believing it's not in my interest.
I'd still not rule the Action as illogical ( a quibble), I'd consider the premise (1) false and consider the chain of reasoning 'illogical' on that basis. If the premise is true, can a person actually do that?( as I've interpreted your statement), perhaps it’s ‘impossible’ rather than illogical to choose an action not in my interest.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree premise (1) is false but I see it differently. I can't see any justification for saying that all your actions must be in your interests; where would this 'mustness' come from?

and as usual with me, I'm not 'proving' my claim about illogical actions but trying to understand what we mean by saying an action is illogical. If all my reasoning tells me that an action is against my interests, but then I do it anyway, then that is what I mean by an illgical action.

I hate examples but as its a poker forum; Mr P is trying to play poker well as possible, he knows he is beat on the end but cant stop himself calling.

Logically: Mr P's believes his interests imply ~calling
illogically: Mr P call.

[ QUOTE ]
With (B) [(B)An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.], I'm trying to see the linkage between beliefs and 'in my interest' and trying to avoid chasing my own tail.. An argument can be built correctly on false premises, in fact, I try and do that 3 times before lunch each day. Since we can rarely have all the evidence, our conclusions always start with a usually unexpressed redundant "if these premises are true... " and, "If these are all the facts/premises that apply …".

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll try to be clearer because its nothing to do with false premises.

Suppose Mr P's interests, I, imply wanting W to be the case and wanting W to be the case implies not doing action A. Then
1)I -> W
2) W -> ~A
therefore
3) I -> ~A

If Mr P believes 1) and 2) but hasn't realised that 3) is a logical consequence, so he doesn't realise that A doesn't serve his interests, then doing A is illogical (that is someone who is 100% logical would realise all the logical consequences of what they believe and act accordingly).

Poker analogy is not letting your opponent raise when it will make you want to throw up. Mr P wants to see a showdown but unthinkingly bets on the end, only realising after his opponent raised why he shouldn't have bet.

Mr P's believes his interest -> not letting his opponent raise
Mr P believes not letting his opponent raise -> not betting
therefore
A logical consequence of Mr P's beliefs is that he believes betting is against his interests.

Betting is illogical even if MR P never thinks about it enough to realise that betting is against his interests.

chez