Logically inconsistant, my ***

[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

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Not all humans are of equal value.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. The crazy thoughts swimming in the burgler's head are different than the crazy thoughts swimming in a 'rational' person's head which creates the difference in action. Some think some way, some think another way and the difference in opinion creates tension because the two groups are scared and ignorant of eachother and themselves. Both groups are still crazy though. When you know that you're crazy though, you can really beat the crap out of the burglar, but only cause you know that you're crazy. If you don't know that you're crazy, it will be anger that is kicking his face in. But if someone is crazy and doesn't know they are crazy, then they are just ignorant.