"The Gist" of Informationalism


I received a comment on my last entry that my thoughts were fascinating, however, the reader was still trying to understand "the gist" of my thinking. So, my hope here is to clarify the basics of the perspective of Informationalism.

Informationalism has its foundation on this positive judgment. It is Positive in that the truth of this statement can be tested scientifically. This first part is about pure informationalism.

The free distribution and acquisition of Information is the only way to ultimately ensure the survival of humanity.

This is not only testable, it is quite obvious. For example, not all that long ago in human history it was the consensus of the "scientific" community that Malaria was caused by "bad air". As we acquired new information from observation through the scientific method, we discovered the actual cause of Malaria. We have thus been far more effective in dealing with the disease, and sparing ourselves from it.

Some might retort that there might be instances where it is to our advantage not to know the truth of what is taking place, or that there are things which we can never know.

To the first I would respond that in order to know this, we would first have to acquire more information.

To the second, I would make a similar reply, and state that asserting that there are things we can never know is a complete illusion. To say that something always or never occurs is based on knowledge which we do not yet have, therefore we can only say what is and what is not likely. However, one must not make the mistake of thinking this means things like creationism are on par with sciences like evolution. Some things have evidence and others do not, and if you choose to ignore the evidence, it is highly likely natural selection is going to be very unkind to you.

What if Information is simply an Illusion?

Again, we would need more information to know this. Also, those who choose not to explore this "illusion" (and it is a choice) are once again highly likely to be naturally selected out of existence.

Couldn't we still be destroyed with Informationalism? And why should it matter?

Yes, to the first question. Our complete demise could come at any moment. But it is highly likely that with Informationalism we are giving ourselves our best chance at survival. Once again, I cannot think of a situation where it wouldn't be beneficial to have more information. The only way to know it wouldn't be more beneficial is to have more information, unless one knew everything.

To the last question, it matters because only things that are the best at surviving make it in the end. Informationalism is the ultimate survival strategy. If you don't want to survive, that's fine, but that line of thought is only possible if there is a drive around you to survive, otherwise the entire race would perish.

Is extinction a bad thing?

Once again, that's up for the reader to decide. Pure Informationalism does not tell you what is good or bad, it simply tells you what happens. This is because pure Informationalism is scientific.


Practical Informationalism

Obviously we cannot always have all of the Information. It's also not always possible to make judgments on immediately testable hypotheses.

This is where practical Informationalism comes into play. This is what I have been outlining throughout most of the last part of my blog.

I've been asking myself the question: How can we create an environment that moves closer to pure informationalism, because pure informationalism gives us our best chance at survival.

This is where species-useful and individual-useful information came into play. I suggested that if Informationalism is true then one cannot separate the good of the individual from the good of the group. If the group is not acting in the interests of the individual, it is not informationalist, and if the individual is not acting in the interests of the group, then it is not being informationalist.

This means the group respects the privacy of individual-useful information and the individual understands the necessity of providing species-useful information.

Why are the group and the individual afraid of one another in modern society?

Since they understand the power of Information, people are afraid of others knowing their secrets. This is because of the power it gives others over them. Knowledge is power, and the one who has the knowledge and refuses to share it is in a position of power.

What the individual who does not share information does not realize, is that this individual is ultimately damaging themselves and others in the future. It is not always for sure in an uninformationalist society who will have the power of Information.

So, in an Informationalist society, this fear of secrets ceases to have its power. Power through Information is collective, as it should be, since it is the only real source of power.

-----------------

I divided the progression of Practical Informationalism towards a kind of Pure Informationalism into stages.

1. Discourse Informationalism- Where Informationalists strive to create an environment that promotes Informationalism.

2. Revolutionary Informationalism- This occurs ostensibly when Informationalists are the ones that wield the power in a nation or world political entity. Then one can use the mechanisms of the state to speed the transformation towards Informationalism.

3. Traditional Informationalism- This takes place when Informationalism has become the established norm in the society. From this point onward it will be up to a new generation of individuals with a completely evolved worldview from our own to decide the future.



Once again, Informationalism is a choice. But it seems highly likely that those who do not choose Informationalism will eventually not be around to tell their tales.

Those of you, who choose to survive, choose to be Informationalists. Those who do not choose to be Informationalists, choose not to survive.

Are there things more important than the survival of the species?

I haven't come across any testable Information to the contrary.