Logically inconsistant, my ***

[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

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 'proving' my claim about illogical actions but trying to understand what we mean by saying an action is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
1)I -> W 2) W -> ~A therefore 3) I -> ~A

when A is done, then it appears illogical, but that is in a very simplified system when there are no Ia, Ib, Ic, to contend with. IOW, I is not as easy to define as we’d like to think. To go along with your poker example, an outside logical observer, perhaps me as his omniscient opponent may predict “ He’ll call even though he knows he’s almost surely beat because …. “ and go on to list Ib, Ic . “He won’t want to look like a wuss”, “99% certainty means he’ll be worrying about not sleeping tonight wondering if I had it.”.

So the logical error occurs in MrP not correctly identifying his needs, ‘leaving out facts’ and pretending that simple ‘I’ was his interest. His action however was consistent with his actual interests whether or not we or he thinks they are worthwhile interests or not. It's no accident that poker is dominated by males, a big chunk of it isn't about the money.

( this is off your point, but often it’s that his reasoning is flawed, he’s not able to juggle enough variables quickly enough to make good decisions, those are illogical actions because the steps themselves are screwed up. It’s a lesser crime to miss some facts, and have the logical steps correct for the shrunken fact set you are working with. Outcome is the same so we usually can’t tell from the outside which one it is just by looking at the final decision.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
when A is done, then it appears illogical, but that is in a very simplified system when there are no Ia, Ib, Ic, to contend with. IOW, I is not as easy to define as we’d like to think. To go along with your poker example, an outside logical observer, perhaps me as his omniscient opponent may predict “ He’ll call even though he knows he’s almost surely beat because …. “ and go on to list Ib, Ic . “He won’t want to look like a wuss”, “99% certainty means he’ll be worrying about not sleeping tonight wondering if I had it.”.


[/ QUOTE ]
It's easy to define but hard to be confident as to whether he is acting illogicaly or we are mistaken about what he believes is in his interests.

[ QUOTE ]
So the logical error occurs in MrP not correctly identifying his needs, ‘leaving out facts’ and pretending that simple ‘I’ was his interest. His action however was consistent with his actual interests whether or not we or he thinks they are worthwhile interests or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by actual interests, I don't think there is any such thing. All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to define but hard to be confident as to whether he is acting illogicaly or we are mistaken about what he believes is in his interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but I'd add (c) or he is mistaken about what his interests are, which questions this - [ QUOTE ]
All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

[/ QUOTE ] which is true. That doesn't allow us to conclude that what we believe we want is what we want, we're not internally omniscient either. In many cases, it's much easier to see what somebody wants from the outside than it is for them from the inside. The, "If you think you play poker (only) for the money, you're only fooling yourself" view of things.

Still, on a philosophy forum we can only deal with the logic as it is overtly presented, and leave the 'a persons philosophy grows out of their psychology' type questions to the psychology forum, I 'spose. ( although it does explain a lot of what we read here).
luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

[/ QUOTE ] which is true. That doesn't allow us to conclude that what we believe we want is what we want, we're not internally omniscient either .

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it matters. In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.

If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.
If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Although I agree that as far as assessing the logical worth of a decision that's the assumption we make, and the only assumption we can make in that framework, still, there is evidence that the process may actually be reversed in at least some of our actions. Decision first, reasons to follow. I think that process is observable in posting on internet forums. Any further comments of mine would need to be in the psychology forum.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.
If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Although I agree that as far as assessing the logical worth of a decision that's the assumption we make, and the only assumption we can make in that framework, still, there is evidence that the process may actually be reversed in at least some of our actions. Decision first, reasons to follow. I think that process is observable in posting on internet forums. Any further comments of mine would need to be in the psychology forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure much of the time you're right and we make the decision first and then attempt to justify it - I know I do that a fair bit. Is this type of behavior illogical? Seems kinda necessary for learning - try it on for size and if it fits then work out why?

Its quite a good method for testing beliefs/actions (although it can be hard work for all involved). I have an intuitive feel that B is true so I boldly state that B is true and then try to justify it/defend it against all comers. (Isn't that what your doing with this thread?). I like to think I'm honest so if I discover the position is unsupported I will tend to abandon it (this can be a painful process).

The problem is its often completely bogus. Some people will maintain their position even if the argument is clearly faulty because they have no interest at all in whether their belief is logical (that may be fair enough but if honest they wouldn't pretend it was as a result of logic). The clearest example of this is the ID argument for god - most people who spout ID do not believe in god because of ID and would not have a weaker belief in god if they understood that the ID argument is faulty.

Don't take it to physcology, philosophers are better at sorting this mess out [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

chez