the value of information

[LHX]

Some more thoughts I had while in the shower this morning...


some forms of "value" could be defined as "that which is useful in keeping you alive another day".  That could encompass both tangible things, as well as ideas or concepts.  In this way, stuff like money, or a house, could be grouped together with ideas like "don't lick the wall socket", and "drinking bleach is bad for you."

but other forms of value coul be considered "that which makes your experiential life more pleasant," and could include things that don't keep you alive, but do make you happy: music, booze, philosophy, Philip K Dick books, masturbation, etc.

It seems that in the broadest sense "information" can span both these ideas, in that some information will keep you alive, and some information will make your life better.

The issue of information not making your life better, or making it worse, is an interesting one, in that it seems initially to boil down to the optimist/pessimist paradigm, in that the person receiveing the information has a choice of how to use it in their lives, and their subjective reaction will shape how the information affects them.

Boy, I better get back to work & stop babbling.

yeah - that 'better' idea seems to have some problems

i would be willing to wager tho
that there is a connection between information that 'can keep you alive'
and
the lengths to which man has made his experience on this planet more complicated than it may need to be

case in point -
electricity in wall sockets
and
bleach




back in the day
it could be said that you could learn all the valuable information you need to learn thru experience
without the potential of making life-ending 'errors'

[LMNO]

That implies that if i walked into the woods naked, i could gain enough information to keep myself alive.

Which I doubt.  

Much information about your environment, and how to live in it, is collectively learned, and not from direct personal experience.

[LHX]

That implies that if i walked into the woods naked, i could gain enough information to keep myself alive.

Which I doubt.  

Much information about your environment, and how to live in it, is collectively learned, and not from direct personal experience.

in the current situation

[LMNO]

That implies that if i walked into the woods naked, i could gain enough information to keep myself alive.

Which I doubt.  

Much information about your environment, and how to live in it, is collectively learned, and not from direct personal experience.

in the current situation

Could you be a bit less concise in that last answer?

[LHX]

That implies that if i walked into the woods naked, i could gain enough information to keep myself alive.

Which I doubt.  

Much information about your environment, and how to live in it, is collectively learned, and not from direct personal experience.

in the current situation

Could you be a bit less concise in that last answer?

currently?

[LMNO]

Oh, now I get it.













LMNO
-Doesn't get it.

[LHX]

hahaaaa


what i meant was

what you said may be true for the current environment that we are living in - the one with seemingly harmless objects that you have no real way of knowing can cause harm



having become accustomed to this environment
yes
it seems like it would be a bit tough to survive if you got tossed into the woods / forest / desert / anywhere foreign

[Cain]

It was tough back then too.  The only way of knowing if a plant was poisonous was trial or error.  Without tools, humans are just hairless, angry monkeys.  They tend to not have long lifespans.  Sure life was simpler, but far more difficult because of a lack of extelligence which we lucky individuals have.

[LMNO]

back in the day
it could be said that you could learn all the valuable information you need to learn thru experience
without the potential of making life-ending 'errors'

I contend that almost every environment is hazardous, and if one only learns through direct trial-and-error without employing hypotheses and assumptions, they will put themselves in danger.

[LHX]

back in the day
it could be said that you could learn all the valuable information you need to learn thru experience
without the potential of making life-ending 'errors'

I contend that almost every environment is hazardous, and if one only learns through direct trial-and-error without employing hypotheses and assumptions, they will put themselves in danger.

my hunch is that the world may not be as (naturally) hazardous as we have been led to believe

also

the more i get in to these discussions and 'learn'
the more it appears that there is not too much to really 'know'


it really seems like things have become needlessly complicated to the point of absurdity

i try to stay away from emphasizing things
but
i dont know if i can emphasize that enough


(hence - discordianism?)


if a person really wants to apply this shit
you have to include the fact that we might not live in a hazardous place
or
we might be the architects of all things hazardous

[LHX]

It was tough back then too.  The only way of knowing if a plant was poisonous was trial or error.  Without tools, humans are just hairless, angry monkeys.  They tend to not have long lifespans.  Sure life was simpler, but far more difficult because of a lack of extelligence which we lucky individuals have.

i cant really agree with this anymore

fertile soil is fertile soil
irrigation is a matter of beating down a path
shelter is a matter of piling dirt


the 'human = hairless angry monkey with tools' theory seems less and less likely to me

[LMNO]

if a person really wants to apply this shit
you have to include the fact that we might not live in a hazardous place
or
we might be the architects of all things hazardous

I refer you again to the proposition of going naked into the woods, sans the "hazardous architecture" of our own creations, and finding out that, yes, the so-called "natural world" is a pretty fucking dangerous place without tools or a priori knowledge.

[LHX]

if a person really wants to apply this shit
you have to include the fact that we might not live in a hazardous place
or
we might be the architects of all things hazardous

I refer you again to the proposition of going naked into the woods, sans the "hazardous architecture" of our own creations, and finding out that, yes, the so-called "natural world" is a pretty fucking dangerous place without tools or a priori knowledge.

this is prolly the only area where we disagree


tho
i do agree that it would likely be a helluva mindfuck to take the average city dweller at 930 am and toss him in the woods by 1000



then again
i dont even know if 'the woods' is any more a 'natural' environment for a human than the city would be

i dont think i have seen many monkeys in the woods of north america

[LMNO]

The Amazon then.


I give a naked human 10 minutes, tops, in the Amazon.




Or, perhaps, you could name a location that is "natural" for a naked human to be?

Or, barring that, name a "natural' environment that is "safe"

[Enrico Salazar]

Or, perhaps, you could name a location that is "natural" for a naked human to be?

Between Enrico's well-oiled thighs?