How might the utility of an idea be measured? — Josh Alfred

Agreed with the answer you provided to us but I also want to point out another one. I think we can measure the utility of an idea considering of how effective it is to both parts: the one who developed the idea and then the other who perceive it.
Probably when we are debating about the utility in ideas we have to emphasize how effective would be when we spread it to others.

How might the utility of an idea be measured? I would consider applying Hedonic Calculus. Does that seem like the right direction? What about memetics and the principles behind MEME success? Such memes of today's techno-culture have very little utility, wouldn't you agree? — Josh Alfred

Go Wittgenstein: a word can be used in any way one wishes - the sky's the limit. Words, all said and done, are ideas, no?

Since, as per Wittgenstein, we can have our way with words, there's no point measuring utility - every word (idea) would be of equal utility, only the limits of imagination getting in the way of infinite utility. Perhaps your question isn't about words (ideas) then but about imagination, is it infinite or not?

"Since, as per Wittgenstein, we can have our way with words, there's no point measuring utility - every word (idea) would be of equal utility, only the limits of imagination getting in the way of infinite utility." "Equal utility" because they can all be used in a worthy structure/syntax? I wonder what an idea without any utility would look like? Bringing up any idea kind of engages the idea with some kind of importance/utility.

I think Chomsky's famous non-grammatical sentence is a case when words with out "proper syntax" lack utility. WIKI - "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical."

Its cool to think that the structure of a sentence/idea can add to its utility. Is there any reading you might suggest that works with the this and/or the main thesis?

"I think we can measure the utility of an idea considering of how effective it is to both parts: the one who developed the idea and then the other who perceive it." Agreed. I think this idea can be expanded upon.

The substance of an idea or its correlate is the thing itself. So an appraisal of an idea's utility would have to be some function of the material utility of what it represents???

I can say, "Some meat is a high source of vital proteins." ...but it means more than it is worth. Though the idea represents the value mentioned, the idea itself, is useless less applied in some sense. Living out the idea is more valuable than just thinking of it. So ideas are more valuable per their applicability. Now I just need to back track that to your point and make some sensical links there (fecundity and utility).

Hopefully, I can turn some of this into a blog. It will require much more contemplation, critical thinking, and questioning, though. I will link this page as a source on said blog, if it ever happens. :)

Hopefully, I can turn some of this into a blog. It will require much more contemplation, critical thinking, and questioning, though. I will link this page as a source on said blog, if it ever happens. :) — Josh Alfred

You can do it! :up: this topic sounds interesting to write about in a blog. Whenever you finish our are ready you can share it to me because I am interested in read it.

"Since, as per Wittgenstein, we can have our way with words, there's no point measuring utility - every word (idea) would be of equal utility, only the limits of imagination getting in the way of infinite utility." "Equal utility" because they can all be used in a worthy structure/syntax? I wonder what an idea without any utility would look like? Bringing up any idea kind of engages the idea with some kind of importance/utility.

I think Chomsky's famous non-grammatical sentence is a case when words with out "proper syntax" lack utility. WIKI - "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical."

Its cool to think that the structure of a sentence/idea can add to its utility. Is there any reading you might suggest that works with the this and/or the main thesis? — Josh Alfred

As far as I can tell, you've answered your own question, The Chomsky sentence, "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", is being used to elucidate the point that grammatically correct sentences may lack any meaning whatsoever. All such sentences would thus possess this specific purpose of illustrating Chomsky's views. Whether Chomsky's correct or not is another story.

How might the utility of an idea be measured? — Josh Alfred

In engineering, the utility of a particular action or actions to meet a particular goal is often determined in a feasibility study (FS). The steps in the process include the following:

• Describe existing conditions.
• Identify the problem/goal.
• Identify, describe, and specify several actions or groups of actions that may be able to achieve the goal.
• Evaluate the relative performance of the identified actions on the basis of standardized criteria.

A typical set of evaluation criteria might include the following:

• Difficulty of implementation
• Effectiveness in meeting goals
• Consistency with laws, regulations, and required permits
• Safety
• Cost

Not sure if that's the kind of thing you are talking about.

Go Wittgenstein: a word can be used in any way one wishes - the sky's the limit. — TheMadFool

That was not Wittgenstein; that was Humpty Dumpty.

How might the utility of an idea be measured? I would consider applying Hedonic Calculus. Does that seem like the right direction? What about memetics and the principles behind MEME success? Such memes of today's techno-culture have very little utility, wouldn't you agree? — Josh Alfred

The number of contexts in which the idea is relevant and the resulting explanantory power from understanding the idea. Like, Maxwell's equations would be the gold standard I'd imagine.

Go Wittgenstein: a word can be used in any way one wishes - the sky's the limit.
— TheMadFool

That was not Wittgenstein; that was Humpty Dumpty. — Banno

Banno uses the words "Humpty Dumpty" to express his displeasure at TheMadFool for having misrepresented Wittgenstein. There!

What about memetics and the principles behind MEME success? Such memes of today's techno-culture have very little utility, wouldn't you agree? — Josh Alfred

I would certainly like to agree, but there is a problem: propaganda, deception, misrepresentation, manipulation, are uses. You cannot avoid in human affairs the moral dimension, so before you can calculate, you need to distinguish use from abuse. Language is a social good , and has social and antisocial uses. The bank clerk and the bankroller use the same language, and likewise the philosopher and the meme artist.

But I will offer one principle that might help a little or make your project impossible. I seems clear to me that the abuse of language is destructive of meaning, because meaning relies on trust. If one cannot believe anything a politician says, (or a husband) their communication becomes meaningless and thus useless, as described by Aesop's fable of The Boy who Cried 'Wolf'. Thus dishonesty destroys trust and so destroys meaning. The use of a word is therefore dependent on a social context; the more we can trust each other's honesty, the more use we can make of our language.