The Individual

Before I go into the final outlines of Informationalism, I thought it would be best to write something solely concerning the individual. One must not forget what has been said earlier, that you cannot separate the good of the individual from the good of the species, they are one and the same.

But, as always with Informationalism, it is important to define what it is exactly that I mean by this. My statement, while sounding high and mighty, can be used to defend the police state and the libertarian state alike.

So, what do I mean?

Individuals must deal with each other as just that, individuals. It is very easy to treat another human being as if he were something other than a fellow human being. Differences of opinion, sex, race, or nation can make another human being seem alien.

It is natural for human beings to feel a certain amount of discomfort to the alien. The fear can transform the mind and cause it to act in ways that we would find discomforting in a so-called sound state of mind.

As an Informationalist we must strive to never forget that the people we are dealing with are people just like us. They may not be Informationalists, they may believe that a super natural god controls their lives. They may not feel that Informationalism or the survival of the species is something vitally important. As human beings we make our own choices, because we are individuals.

So when you interact with your fellow human beings, remember that they feel and want just the way that you do. Their pain is pain that you can feel, their joy is joy that you can share. As Informationalists we feel that Information and its freedom are of vital importance to our joy and our happiness, but this does not give us the right to inflict pain onto those who do not share our feelings.

We will do battle with them in the arena of free discourse. We will fight them with tools of science, logic, and good will. A man who will blow himself up in the name of his god is not an evil man, he is a man who has had his mind corrupted. The people who would stop the free flow of Information are not bad people, they have simply been lost in visions of their own grandeur. They have been the victims of the misdirection of natural feelings from within their own bodies.

As children they may be dealt with as a parent deals with a child who misunderstands, as adults we must deal with them as fellow citizens of the world. We must be confident that in the end they will agree with what can be demonstrated before their very eyes over and over again.

If they chose not to, then this is their choice, and we cannot stop them from making their own choices. It is not our business to invade the private sphere. They must be allowed to live their lives, though we will not shrink from the challenge of showing them the results of how we feel.

Should they chose to try and silence the free flow of Information, then we must react. If they chose to try and silence it with violence, eventually we must answer it with violence if we wish to maintain our way of life.

But this is not a good thing, victory by violence is never a good thing, for it means that Information has been destroyed. An individual destroyed by violence is a tragedy; it does not matter if the individual was an informationalist or not.

We want to preserve and expand ourselves. There is no final end, there is only the will of the individual and the collective will of the species to continue onward. Embracing this will means embracing the value of the lives of every individual.


If my point sounds familiar to you, I would not be surprised. Countless movements have embraced this altruism for the moment that it suited their best interest. However, one by one, they gave into the idea that by force they can eventually make an adult human being "better". Learning and the changing of the mind of an individual with decades of experience shaped within a psychological framework is not something that can be changed forever by force. It will only breed resentment.

Types and Kinds of Information


In my previous post on Capitalism and The Free Market I realized I must expound on the types of information. Two which I identified are individual-useful and species-useful information.

Individual-Useful Information


Individual useful information is information that is useful to the individual, but not useful to the species. An example of this might be, for example, what the individual had for breakfast the previous morning. Or, how the individual feels about socialism or capitalism. Or, who the parents of the individual are. This information is not immediately useful as species-information.

However, individual information may become species information under certain circumstances. For example, if what you had for breakfast could hold the key to a plague that has been sweeping the planet. The reader might have noticed that this situation is exaggerated and highly unlikely.

So, what can we infer from individual-useful information? The individual useful information is made up of the experiences and current personal feelings and activities of the individual. This inhabits to social world, and has little to do with scientific knowledge at the outset. Attempting to ascertain individual useful information without first proving that it is actually species useful information is bound to cause trouble, and is furthermore completely useless. Hence, the need for privacy.

Species-useful information

Species useful information can be best stated as discoveries of so-called scientific fact. What is the strength of gravity on earth? What exactly is time? How much money did a certain company make in the 4th quarter?

In case the reader hadn't noticed. Species-useful and individual useful information bear a resemblance to the idea of positive and normative statements which I expounded upon earlier. Positive statements being statements of fact, and normative statements being those of opinion. Opinion is the realm of the individual and individual-useful information. While species-useful information inhabits the realm of the positive world.

It is true that these two forms of information can transform into one another. The individual can use species-useful information to support his opinion, and the collective can require individual useful information to ascertain species useful-information.

The point here is that, for the most part, these two kinds of information are distinct. Also, for reasons I outlined in the need for a private sphere in an earlier post, it is to the advantage of Informationalists that the private sphere exist and be left to cultivate the individual. Abuse of individual-useful information can corrupt or stagnate species-useful information, and so should be approached with extreme caution.

Informationalism: Capitalism and the Free Market

Here are the definitions of Capitalism and Free Market from www.dictionary.com

Capitalism: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

Free Market: "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."


How does Informationalism react to the system of Capitalism? The goal of Informationalism is to create an environment where the ability to acquire new information and distribute it freely is maximized. Acquisition of Information and its efficient distribution has a tone that is similar is structure to Capitalist Ideology.

It is here that we come to a unique situation. Capitalism and Economics in general deal with the scarcity if materials. These materials are generally real in the concrete sense, whereas Information is something immaterial. It is possible to transfer ideas through language and other media in many formats. But, the ideas themselves are of immaterial form.

For all intensive purposes it is not possible to exchange one person’s idea to another in its complete sense. The differences between each individual mean that they interpret Information in ways that are personal. Perhaps the understanding of the meaning and laws behind the falling of a rock are almost the same for me as they are for somebody else. However, without actually being the other person, one can never understand with exact precision the ideas within the mind of another.

This is how we bring Information into the material world. It's not that another realm like our own exists, and for that reason we cannot perfectly acquire the information. It is the high probability that we are part of this world. Therefore, we must use symbols to interpret the interactions within our mind, which cannot currently be perfectly understood because of the lack of technology to do so. Even so, I think it is highly improbably that we can ever know the mind of another without being their mind. To evaluate the mind of another, even with highly advanced instruments, still leads to our own bias, because we are our own individual.

So when we talk about the acquisition and distribution of Information, we are actually talking about two things.

The first is creating an environment where new ideas can manifest within individuals. The second, to ensure that the symbolic approximated medium of transfer for the Information can be readily accessed and freely distributed.

It is here that the conflict with Capitalism appears. Ideal Capitalism involves the private ownership of the means of production. In a Capitalist system, it appears not to be wise to share your information. It encourages innovation initially by rewarding those with unique ideas which allow for the better production of desired goods.

The first assumption here relies on the desires of the individual. Capitalism wishes to meet the desires of the individual as long as that desire does not conflict with Capitalist ideology. What does this lead to?

First, Capitalism does not take into account that individuals are not always rational. If individuals wish to engage in activities that are species destructive, but not immediately destructive to Capitalism. Capitalism is focused upon the individual. It neglects that fact that the individual dies.

Capitalism promotes holding information private that could be to the benefit of the species. This is because it is driven by profit, and not by the desire to acquire and freely distribute information.

It deals in the free market, where supply and demand are supposed to be met efficiently. But it assumes the irrationality or the greed of the individual will be held at bay so that a diplomatic pricing scheme can be established. It also fails to address the question as to whether or not the product in question is of any use.

With Capitalism it is possible for a population to become fixated on material goods that are actually destructive in nature. The Free Market and Capitalism have no remedy for this. For example, here in America the current working and economic standards are forced upon the businesses by our government. What results is a futile power struggle between the abuses of two greed based systems.

How can Informationalism help?

By opening up the mediums of Information, it removes the corrupting nature of the capitalist system. The informatialist system is also not fixed on individual profit, it is focused upon gathering important information that will improve and ensure the continuation of the species.

It does not ignore the self-interest of the individual. Informationalism encourages competing with ideas. It makes the assumption that individuals alone cannot win in the discourse of ideas.

If a man discovers a wonderful technology, but hides it’s from the world, what good is it really? Perhaps he can acquire wealth?

Wealth is only important to individuals. If there are no individuals, then there is no wealth. Therefore, the only way to maintain wealth is to maintain individuals.

So, it would appear that the only way to maintain any form of Capitalism is through Informationalism.

Competition is important for the survival of the species. The cultivation of the individual is also important for the survival of the species. But Capitalism assumes that competition and the individual are more important than the species.

I believe I have shown that you cannot separate them. To talk about competition or individuality without the species is simply fallacious.

So should competition and the individual be less important than the species?

Again I say that they cannot be separated. We cannot choose one over the other. If one is not allowing the individual to produce ideas, then they are not acting in the interest of the species. If the individual desires to stop the flow and acquisition of information, which is not in the private sphere, then he is not acting in the interest of himself or the species.

What about this private sphere?

I spoke not long ago about the need for a private sphere for the creation of Information. This private sphere is crucial. I will go into it further when I talk about the symbolic human world in conjunction with species-useful and individual-useful information.

The Link Between Religion and Violence

This is a commentary on Religious certainty by Sam Harris. While I wouldn't isolate the problem to just religion, I would broaden it to any doctrine that requires you to believe in it unconditionally and based off of no real evidence.

My Bias

In order to begin a clear and candid discussion of Information, I think it is pertinent to talk about what my personal preferences are. Too often people present ideas as if they were true, when in reality they are entirely subjective matters of personal preference. We must distinguish between the normative and positive statements.

Normative statements are judgments of value.

Positive statements are statements of fact that can be used to support normative statements.

Informationalism relies heavily on the positive, but it does take a normative stance. Namely, that the goal of humanity is the continuity of the species, and that this can best be achieved by acquiring and distributing information as avidly and freely as possible.

This is where the first conflict arises. Religions, such as Islam and Christianity, propose that humans have an immortal soul that can go to heaven or hell based on following or not following their canon of scripture. Here the goal is not the continuation of human existence, it is entry into heaven. They also do not value the pursuit of Information, only the observation of the tenets of their Canon of scriptures. Hence, my commentary earlier on the definitions that must be met for religion to be in harmony with Informationalism.

Informationalism seeks all positive statements with this in mind. It is the normative judgment of the Informationalist that the more positive information he possess, the greater the chance of the survival of the Informationalist and the species.

Before I go further into my bias, I would like to say that it is possible that positive statements could disprove Informationalism. Perhaps we could come across information that proves the survival of the species is not important, or that the free acquisition and distribution of Information does not help the species survive. If this be the case, the perspective of Informationalism stands debunked. However, this Information has yet to surface, and it is my normative suggestion that it is highly unlikely that it ever will. Let me also say that freely pursuing Information to find out that the information debunks this free flow seems somewhat contradictory in nature.

Bias-

1. I believe in the Democratic Republican form of government. I believe in the separation of Powers into the legislative, executive and judicial. I feel that the legislative body would be best if it were one body instead of two as it is in my country of America. I also feel that another governmental body should be established to evaluate the other three branches in terms of the efficiency and promotion of free Information.

2. I believe in Natural Social Capitalism. A system of Economics of (to my knowledge), my own invention. I suggest that we should structure out society to provide a minimum standard of living to all who live in it. When individuals are allowed free (free in the sense that they pay for it with their taxes) access to healthcare and education, they can then be encourages to compete from there. No one has to go hungry, nobody has to die due to starvation of lack of medical care, and the people who want to keep to themselves can keep to themselves. I think there will always be plenty of ambitious people, even more when no one has to worry about a full stomach.

3. I believe our ultimate governmental goal should be a world government structure around the first two principles I have just laid out.

4. I believe humanity's ultimate goal is to develope technology sufficient enough to explore the stars and the rest of our universe first hand.

** I have many other normative opinions that I will attempt to keep out of my Informationalist analysis. There are some conclusions that naturally follow embracing the normative foundation of Informationalism, the rest are constructed by the individual. Informationalism encourages a variety of opinions, especially in areas where the degree of uncertainty is especially large. It is still important, however, to be skeptical in areas of extreme certainty. But, as I said, we might want to avoid putting faith in the flying pig.

As an Informationalist one is allowed to have normative opinions that one can support with Informationalism. I will do my best to inform you when I notice I am making a conjecture that is entirely of my own judgment, and not based on enough positive Information to be considered a nearly definite conjecture.

I wanted to get a feel for the online climate towards Informationalism. So I have been participating in some online discussions on forums. I've found that the people I have been engaged in discussion with seem to be driven very powerfully by personal bias. This is not surprising; it is common human nature to act in our own interest. We perceive our own interest to be the things that we want.
However, Informationalism suggests that perhaps it is in our own interest to gather information and interpret it in an empirical and objective way as closely as possible. It think it is probably true that it is highly unlikely that one can overcome all bias, or consider a subject from a totally objective point of view. But, does this mean we should allow ourselves to be possessed by bias. Our bias, which has been instilled by our parents and our society, and is upon close examination not really our personal feeling at all.
My debates have been closed almost entirely too political issues, and I've found that it is difficult for one to garner attention unless one makes outlandish statements. Bold proclamations.
Does this call attention to why those who follow doctrines without evidence in complete certainty are so vocal about their claims? Could individuals perhaps want to believe outlandish claims on some level because it makes them feel important? I will deal with this later when I attempt to explore the relationship of Informationalism and Psychology from an Informationalist's perspective.

Informationalism as a perspective system tries to avoid proclamations of absolute certainty. It is, after all, impossible to prove completely that pigs cannot fly. However, if one chose to embrace this as absolutely true because it cannot be proven false; it is very likely that they would quickly find themselves most unfortunate if they were to jump from a building waiting on a flying pig to catch them.

We can discuss what is likely given the evidence. We can also discuss what the relationships between the information we receive seem to suggest. What we cannot do is make with complete certainty absolute generalizations about this information without all of the information. Once again, we can only say what is likely and go from there. One could use this to deny everything likely and chose to take the side of the unlikely; that is a fair choice. It is my hope that the flying pig catches you.

It is sometimes true that what has been discounted at one time has later turned out to be true in another. This is why we do not dismiss improbability entirely. If our data leads us away from what is highly likely, that means it wasn't really highly likely after all.

Soon I will attempt to strengthen the layouts of the perspective of Informationalism. Then I will attempt to analyze data from an Informationalist's perspective. This is not the same as a so-called Freudian psychoanalysis. Nor is it as simple as making a hypothesis and testing it as is the case in the scientific method. It is examining the information, whatever for it may come in, and determining what we can learn from it. What does this information suggest?
If this sounds fairly scientific, that is because it is so. But science itself is a tool. Informationalism is a way to use the tool.

Bertrand Russell on clarity and exact thinking

This is the only clip I could find of Bertrand Russell. Perhaps one of the most famous thinkers in the history of the world. The way he speaks of clarity and exact thinking are very important I feel. Though it might never be possible to be totally rid of your bias, one should at least try to be aware that it exists. One should always be on the lookout for where it might spring up, because it can distort your information. I also believe he might have been correct in asserting that the autobiolgraphical philosophy of old, while having value, might interfere with progress in the modern world.

Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein was perhaps one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. His contributions to analytical philosophy and the philosophy of mind constitute a real break from philosophy in the classical sense. A short description of his life and contributions can be found here on Wikipedia.

Nietzsche believed philosophy to be a sort of autobiography of the philosopher; a dissertation on their own mind. Wittgenstein broke with this tradition in a way that, while certainly not a complete objectification, called into question the whole focus and purpose of philosophy. It is due to him, in part, that I place such emphasis on the clarity of words in informationalism. It is very easy for one to become lost in one's own words. One advances a sublime and beautiful rhetoric, as in the case of Rousseau, and in this "beauty" one loses the desire to understand exactly what it is that they are advancing. This is a tragedy that has befallen many great men.

So here I will present and then comment on some of his basic postulates in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:

1. The World is everything that is the case.

2. What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.

3. The Logical picture of the facts is the thought.

4. The thought is the significant proposition.

5. Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions.

6. The general form of truth-function is the general form of proposition.

7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

What is the the basis of this philosophy?

Wittgenstein suggests here that "reality" is the collection of atomic facts. These atomic facts are statements that in themselves are true. We arrange these atomic facts in our mind to form propositions. If atomic facts cannot be found to be in concordance with the proposition, one cannot speak of whatever thought the mind has formed.

The point behind this is not Wittgenstein's overall philosophy. Nor is it even the existence of the atomic facts. What I suggest here is that in the realm of seeking information, it is important not to blindly accept statements as true because of the way they sound or appeal to us. Despite the emotions we may feel, we must break down even the most beautiful aphorisms, because beauty itself is a human construction.

Richard Dawkins - 2005 - Cali Lecture

This is the famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins speaking at a lecture in 2005.

I find this an excellent example of why informationalism is so important. The reaches of the human mind are currently unknown to us. This is why it is very arrogant to propose that we know things "without a doubt".

At the same time, we must make some assumptions in order to live in the world which we find ourselves. But, to make assumptions about the world that do not apply to our survival and label them "incontrovertable" is arrogance.

Informationalism and Government


So, I have suggested where the Informationalist might stand on politics; so what about government?

As I stated earlier, one of the goals of the Informationalist is to shape society so that information flows freely and as quickly as possible. However, as I have attempted to clarify elsewhere, in order to maintain a situation where variation can take place, some isolation is necessary. Where is the line drawn? I have already attempted to deal with this earlier, and am sure to continue to explore in the time ahead.

As far as governmental types, I shall lay out the accepted archetypal forms:

Oligarchy- government of the few
Monarchy- government of the one
Democracy- government of all

the most commonly excepted form of government is a so-called mixture of these forms of government into what is called a "Republic".

To attempt to simplify, most western governments are organized into a republic with a separation of governmental powers into the judicial, executive, and legislative authorities. There are checks and balances to make sure the powers remain separated. Also, the base of the government is a form of representational democracy.

This is a highly complex organization of ideas that has evolved over millennia.

So, where do the Informationalists stand?

Let us begin, as many so-called good things seem to, in the city of Athens. The burst of Greek creativity was connected with a kind of direct democracy. Not in the modern sense, in this case, a sizeable citizen minority governed the city-state. It alternated between a Tyranny, not in the negative sense, and direct democracy.

Let us also consider Rome. The Romans threw off their kings and established the Roman republic. By raising a national army which grew as their empire expanded, they built what was perhaps the largest empire in historical proportions that the world had ever seen. It's only rival is the British empire of the 18th century, and the contemporary American military monopoly.

Rome's republic ultimately degenerated into a Tyranny. But one that nonetheless, often pretend to respect the republican tradition.

Other societies of note that have particular explosions of information are Enlightenment France, The transitional Prussian-German State, Victorian Britain, Ming China, Post-Civil War America, Babylon, and Egypt and the Minoan civilization on the Island of Crete.

One thing that many of these civilizations have in common is that they reach their cultural explosions in the wake of a violent social upheaval.

Victorian Britain does not match this standard. But Greece blossomed when the Persian Empire drove Greeks from Asia Minor. Enlightenment France began in the wake of defeat at the hands of the Germans, and Germany after the defeat of Napoleon.

So, obviously Informationalists don't desire the massive deaths that accompanied these drastic social upheavals. So we must look to what they have in common with Victorian Britain and the Minoans.

The Victorians are our closest example. The Victorian society was not convinced that the traditional system of thought was the best. They began to question long held social conventions. The state, allowed this expression to degrees not often equaled before.

In the wake of the violent military revolutions, governments were weak. For a brief period people had the opportunity to question their government and surroundings before the yoke of a new power was put around their necks. In the case of Victorian Britain, the yoke was returned by the First World War.

So, it is most likely not a simple War that is the consequence of these bursts of creativity. A war destroyed Victorian Britain. A natural disaster destroyed the Minoans. Most of the other cultures destroyed themselves.

This might lead one to ask if it is even possible to create a society with a prolonged explosion of information. Is it?

I do not know. Obviously not, since we do not have the advantage of being able to look at time through the eyes of the infinite.

My conclusion is that one must have a government that allows the individual to express and critique the epitomes of the time period. No argument, no matter how sound or logical should be held up as beyond contestation. However, if one wishes to contest something, they should always offer evidence as to how and why they would do so.

Therefore, the government should support an environment where epitomes and mores can be questioned with sufficient evidence. But then one might ask: How is the government to retain power if the power is questionable?

If we are speaking of a government of informationalists, it is obvious that this power would be seen as not legitimate if it were obstructing the free flow of information. I speak hear of what would be an ideal final form of government run entirely by informationalists. This is, of course, a fantasy. But only slightly more of a fantasy than the government under which any of you live.

In the contemporary political situation I shall focus on America. This is only in this instance, because it is what pertains closest to me. I will not attempt to make hasty generalizations about governments with completely different political histories.

The American government is obviously committed, in certain instances, to the obstruction of information. Certain forces exist inside the government which are supportive of the sciences, and supportive of the practice of evidential dialogue. However, this can not be found as a primary force in either of the two political parties. My suggestion then is that the informationalist focus on amplifying the forces within the government that promote these values. Overall success in this would ultimately be beneficial to everyone, if our goal is to survive of course.

The idea of representative democracy and the separation of power all have legitimate benefits. But as long as their exists a greed for power over others and for material gain the system will never remain perfectly stable or promoting of information.
The best form of government would be one dedicated to the promotion of acquiring and distributing information, founded on laws that would make obstructing this practice difficult and highly improbable. If the government can adhere to this, it will be egalitarian in standards and whatever political form it may take will not regress to the dark side of greed. If it does not adhere to these laws it will eventually fail, and precedent is not yet on the side of its success.

Naturalism, evolution & religion talk

This is an interview with Greg Graffin, a Doctor of Zoology. I found his PHD thesis to be a good example of the problems with informationalism and a personal god.