New Addition to Theses of Informationalism

In reading the American President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, I found the first point to be quite profound. In my opinion, it should form the basis of how Informationalism treats diplomacy. The ultimate goal of Informationalism, of course, is the end of nationalistic governments. But the establishment of an Informationalist state would likely occur in an environment of nationalist governments like our modern governments. Thus, as Informationalists, one must have a method for dealing with such entities that is consistent with Informationalism.

This thesis is my attempt:
"Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."

-Woodrow Wilson; Point I

Peace should always be considered the starting point for Informationalists. Only if an entity seeks to harm or destroy an Informationalist or an Informationalist state does that entity put itself at war with the Informationalist or the Informationalist state. What should follow is the peaceful dissemination of Information to Noninformationalist entities in order to change its paradigm internally.

This harks back to my post on Technique Perfection and Initiative. The action of an Informationalist entity is perfecting the technique of spreading the free flow of Information. This comes from an initiative that must arise internally. Thus while the Informationalist state seeks to perfect the Informationalist method, an individual, society, or nation must ultimately choose for itself to do the same. This is called, self determination.

A Trip Through Logic (From an Informationalist's Perspective)

I learned a little bit of philosophy humor today in regards to contradictions. After thinking about it a little bit in depth, I came to conclude that perhaps what I learned could be useful in demonstrating the necessity of Informationalism. Let us begin with the simple statement: "Everything follows from a contradiction."

What is meant by this? I was exposed to this argument:

It is raining. It is not raining. Therefore, God exists.

Now, at first glance this argument appears as nothing more than nonsense. But in most sequential logic this argument is completely valid. Meaning that if the premises are true, and the conclusion follows from the premises. Then the argument is also sound! Here is the argument spelled out in sequential logic.

P= It is raining
Q= God Exists

1. Show Q Assertion
2. ~Q Assumption (Indirect Derivation)
3. P Premise
4. ~P Premise

In order to prove the validity of this argument, you need only create a contradiction that follows from the premises if we assume the conclusion is false. We have done that, thus the argument is valid. We can derive ANY conclusion from these methods. As long as we have two contradictory statements and a conclusion, the conclusion is always a valid one.

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

Now, you may ask. Why on earth is this relevant? It will never been the case that at the same place and point in time it is both raining and not raining!

ABSOLUTELY! I would reply. But as an Informationalist one must look into the broader implications of this data.
What this actually says is: Someone who believes two contradictory statements at the same time must in order to be logical believe ANYTHING.

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

Do people do this? I'm sure you have encountered individuals, maybe even yourself, that have believed two contradictory statements at the same time. Maybe you believe that it is wrong to steal. And then in some cases you think it was reasonable for someone to steal. Maybe you believe in only one god, but at times you think it's correct to believe in multiple gods. Inconsistency.

One of the goals of Informationalism is to explore the premises and conclusions that create the thoughts in our own minds. We try and look at what the data says and determine if the conclusions are valid. But this is very difficult if one believes two contradictory statements at the same time!

So, I ask once again. Explore your reasons for believing what you believe in your mind. Do you find contradictions? If so, remember that you now have no real grounds to dismiss the truth of any statement unless you rectify the contradiction. Choose the conclusion or premise best supported by the data, and go from there.

Attack on Public Research?


I was reading this article which has to do with an attempt of private organizations blocking the ability of the findings from public research to reach a public audience. The article itself which can be found here focuses on the National Institutes of Health, which is trying to put up a government website which "has encouraged researchers to place copies of their published works at PubMed Central, and has worked with publishers to facilitate this process while avoiding copyright issues." Congress has been exploring legislation to make posting of such research papers mandatory. Stating, "the results of publicly funded research should be accessible by the public that's paid for it."
However, some publishers such as the Association of American Publishers (AAP) are lobbying against moves by the government to make posting the research mandatory. It is their assertion that mandatory posting of the research papers is "an attack on peer review itself and that government-sponsored hosting is an invitation to censorship and manipulation." Thus, they have been lobbying to block passage of the legislation.

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

I am of the opinion that blocking such a move is fundamentally wrong. Even from our current Uninformationalist system, research done with public money should be used for public benefit without incurring further costs. If a company wishes to produce a new technology that was discovered through publicly funded research; they should be able to charge the consumer for their production costs; but they SHOULD NOT be allowed to collect royalty charges for the technology itself.

That being said, I am still of the opinion that all research is fundamentally public property. I would prefer to see the day when there are no patents or copyrights. But that is going to require a fundamental change in how we view information. Until then, I will settle with protecting the freedom of Information that we have.

Carl Sagan Speaks

Carl Sagan is, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest men in the history of the world. In all my readings rarely do I encounter an individual with such a passion for possibility. The possibility of a better life and a better world for everyone. He challenges our nationalism, our religious fervor, our own ethnocentrism in ways that to me make them seem indefensible.
When I hear him speak I a almost feel compelled to stand up and shout at that very moment: Do you not see, we are all one!
I am a firm believer in the technological ability and power of the human species to create a bright future for everyone who would embrace it. I hope those of you who read this feel the same.

I think this video provides a good example about how one should consider events from different perspectives. Informationalism is about trying to rationally and empirically explore all assumptions, especially our presuppositions. This man has obviously put a lot of thought into his opinions, and feels very strongly about them. While I prefer a little more open-mindedness even in the face of rational and empirical certainty, it is certainly preferable to unexplored assumptions.
We all possess ideas be they religion or just every day assumptions that are untrue. They might not be untrue, they might just be ambiguous, but we still view them as true. This is because we've never taken the time to sit down and explore exactly why we think the way that we do.
So, my challenge to you readers is this: Whatever it is you feel is true with passion-stop- analyze why you feel this way. Try to imagine the world if it were false. Does it being false cause the world to make more sense or create contradictions. If so, are these contradictions real, or are they again something you have imagined to be true? It is an iterative method that I feel might clean up some of the misconceptions we all have and maybe lead us to more exciting possibilities.
I like to think we make many of our assumptions as if we were operating in a dream. There are glaring contradictions in our thoughts all around us, yet we do not notice them. Thus I implore you to stop for a few moments and consider your thoughts. Notice.

I think this video speaks to some of the founding principles behind Informationalism. It took quite a bit of introspection and rational inquiry before I came to what I like to call the root cause. The root cause is my idea that all activity is ultimately for the purpose of the survival of the species. Every thought, every action, stems from a basic biological drive to proceed into the future. It is by acquiring more and more Information that we better our pursuit of this root cause.
This drive can be manipulated, redirected, or perhaps fooled by outside forces. But the drive remains, and its primary purpose is written in all of us. Informationalism is attempting to take this root cause to its logical conclusion. Through the free acquisition and distribution of Information we are able to explore which of our actions serve the root cause. Often, we may find that many things, even things like religion which we hold precious, are and have been used as tools to manipulate and deceive this primary drive.
But, as this song tries to reach out and tell us: we must explore ourselves from the inside. That is where real change begins. In my case, as my theory has led me to believe, we discover the paradox of our own simultaneous insignificance and indespensibility. Every human being is different. We all have different ways of processing information which allow all of us to contribute something new. Remember this.

Technique Perfection(An Example)

I made a post not too long ago about Technique perfection and Informationalism. The idea stemmed from some thoughts that I had while swimming laps. I was using my body to swim, a technique I've tried to refine, and at the same time working on mathematical calculations in my head whilst keeping up with my laps. It was a very trying experience, but I was successful, and here is why:

I devoted a great deal of time to refining my swimming technique. So much so that doing the activity no longer required much effort from my conscious mind. My conscious mind was free to practice other things.

So the conclusion that I drew was that it was good to focus on practicing some kind of technique until the delay between thought and action is erased. Then to build and refine other techniques while doing that activity. Building one technique upon another is, in my opinion, a great way to increase the flow of information.

So, without further ado, here is my real world example of absolute technique perfection. As well as a word of warning. Jimi Hendrix was without doubt the quintessential master of the electric guitar. Listening to what he created is a marvelous thing in my opinion. But it's also a reminder than singular obsession with an art has its dangers. While striving to become a "master" at something is good, it should not be the only goal of the individual. The goal is to try and "master" as many arts as possible. It is only then that we can explore the connections between the mind and the body in ways our current vocabulary cannot express.

Informationalism: What should supporters do?


Many of you have followed my posts over the past year or so. It's been an intellectual experimental journey that continues. I hope to be able to offer more of my thoughts, opinions, and possible solutions in the future as always. However, despite my hesitance, I would like to extend the experiment by thesis three of the current theses of Informationalism which states:

"3. "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."

-Marx; Theses on Feuerbach II

Thought is very important. But action is the most important part of a paradigm or philosophy. How well does it work in action.

--

So, what actions might the budding philosophy of Informationalism be able to take in order to demonstrate success, in practice?

I would like to begin the phase of discussion. As I stated in earlier posts, the beginnings of Informationalism arise when groups of people(or just an individual) are compelled to form a kind of free thought society or community. A group that serves as a temporary meeting place where ideas can be shared, conclusions drawn or explored, and overall knowledge increased. An individual can do this simply by engaging another group or individual in a conversation of these means.

Keep in mind, however, as always. That the telos of these actions and conversations is to gather information for the purpose of improving yourself, and your society. All this to the end of ensuring the survival of greater humanity. In an Informationalist conversation, never lose site of its purpose.


Therefore: those of you who are interested in Informationalism might consider forming a group with others that might feel the same way. Or simply engage others by yourselves. Ask them if they feel that the perpetual survival and development of the species is important. Ask them how this might be done. Exchange ideas, form new ones, and think of ways to put them into practice. And remember always that this hinges ultimately on the freedom of information. You must be frank, you must be open, you must truly be free.

**As always, these are my opinions regarding the philosophy of Informationalism. I feel that they show promise, and I desire to expand them into real world experimentation. For those of you who might desire to help me and others by doing this, I would be pleased. For those of you who feel differently, I respect your difference. And for any who might be hostile to what I have said here, know that I harbor no ill will towards any sentient creature.

INITIATIVE AND TECHNIQUE PERFECTION

It's been a while since my last posting. Safe to say I've been doing a lot of thinking about Informationalist philosophy of the past months. First I'd like to encourage you to check out a BLOG one of my friends made. It's an interesting idea that I think merits a little publicity.

There are two new concepts I wish to integrate into the Informationalist philosophy. The first is initiative.

Initiative in the Informationalist sense acknowledges the need of the shift of an equilibrium for an organism to adapt. It CANNOT be taught, but it MUST be learned. Central to the philosophy of Informationalism is the desire of the individual organism to survive. I have spoken in the past about the deep connection between the perpetuation of the individual and the perpetuation of the species, and how it is all wrapped up within the free flow of Information.

Thus, initiative becomes important to Informationalism. One must use information to change their surroundings in order to better meet their require equilibrium for their own survival. However, without ALL DATA the equilibrium constantly shifts due to unforeseen interactions in the universe. It is here that initiative becomes important. It is the initiative to master one's environment once again that makes the data and thus Informationalism perpetually important.

Technique Perfection in the Informationalist sense is something I discovered within the philosophy of Zhuangzi. It is the continual practice of an art so that the boundary between the conscious and unconscious mind is obliterated. For example, the simple action of typing on the keyboard. I am quite adept at my usage of "home row". So adept that I no longer have to think about the position of the letters that I am about to type. As I type this post, I can simply let my thoughts flow onto the screen via the keyboard. Due to my mastery of the skill, there is no visible delay between the processing power of my mind due to locating the letters on the keyboard. I simply know where they are.

Technique perfection is important because of its ability to allow individuals to successfully multitask. Being able to do this makes it possible to produce and acquire more information. It also gives the individual a greater power and understanding of the self and the environment. All of these things are crucial to Informationalism.

Another example of practicing technique perfection I found took place while I swam laps. As I swam I calculated the distance I planned to swim, and adjusted those numbers numbers into other units. I did all this while swimming and keeping up with the current amount of distance I had already covered. It was exhausting, but rewarding.

I would encourage those who read this to attempt to practice technique perfection. Even if you are not an Informationalist. Learn a skill so well you don't have to think about it when you peform it, and then master other tasks while performing that skill. This obviously has its limits, you cannot use a keyboard and weave something at the same time. But activities that do not seriously overlap could be mastered at the same time, increasing one's ability to multi-task and acquire new Information. I hope this has been helpful.

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

I think this right here pretty much says it all when it comes to the significance of humanity. We are wrapped in such a paradox. The earth is everything and yet it is just a pale blue dot. Humanity is everything and yet it is nothing. I use this for Informationalism because I think it shares the spirit of wonder that Informationalism tries to capture. It is with the knowledge that we are this "pale blue dot" that we should feel compelled to drop our petty stereotypes and strive to uncover the vast mystery of the universe in which we live.