Alpha Centauri Secret Project: The Planetary Datalinks

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

I stress this lines and this short video quite often. Though they are the products of mere play and imagination, they are of grave importance to Informationalism.

Creative Response

In the spirit of my new blog, I thought I might discuss how the economic concept of creative response relates to Informationalism.

Creative Response is basically when the rules have been changed to create inefficiencies in a market. For example, an industry is excessively regulated to the point that it cannot supply the demand for its good. The response: black markets!

Take the War on Drugs for another example. Creative response is a perfect reason for the failure of the war on drugs. There is, of course, a demand for drugs. Our harsh drug laws have not eliminated the demand for drugs, they have only restricted the supply. When you restrict the supply, the prices increase! Thus, by not addressing the problem of the demand for drugs and trying to destroy the supply, our government has fostered the black market creative response that has made drugs a billion dollar black market.

You may ask, how on earth does this relate to Informationalism?

As I've stated earlier, the free flow of information is a prerequisite for the establishment of perfect competition and the resulting pareto efficiency. Without Informationalism, we cannot have perfect competition and thus inefficient markets become the rule and not the exception. If we wish to remove the need for creative response which yields billion dollar black markets that cost lives and money, then Informationalism must prevail.

Fundamental Investment Launched!

Hello everyone! I hope that you have all been well in my long time away. I've been doing a lot of studying and I am more convinced of the power of Informationalism than before! Things have been changing and progressing rapidly for me in my life, so much so that I haven't had much time to blog. But, here's a short update:

1. I've launched a new blog called fundamental investment. Why? Because the free flow of information is crucial to economics. The only way we can ever hope to reach pareto efficiency is if Informationalism is fully realized! If you don't know what pareto efficiency is, I'm sure I'll talk about it in due course. As long as we keep secrets such as: patents, government contracts, high transactions cost on certain kinds of information, and insider information, our economy will continue to function at levels below the optimum. I am not saying Informationalism will solve all of our economic woes, but it will certainly make things better!

2. I've finished one short story and began a second that have Informationalism as an underlying theme. I hope to publish them someday, and perhaps I can provide links for those interested on this blog. It's science-fiction, for those of you who like the genre!

May you all be frank with your friends, enemies, and yourselves!

I spend a lot of time on here talking about Informationalism, why I think it's the future. Why I think it has the power to free the minds of every human being on this planet one day. However, today I just want to offer some music. An important part of Informationalism is being able to sit back and absorb the Information. Everyone is a teacher, but likewise is everyone a student. What can you learn from this video?

Here are the Lyrics:

No Surprises: Radiohead

A heart that's full up like a landfill,
a job that slowly kills you,
bruises that won't heal.
You look so tired-unhappy,
bring down the government,
they don't, they don't speak for us.
I'll take a quiet life,
a handshake of carbon monoxide,

with no alarms and no surprises,
no alarms and no surprises,
no alarms and no surprises,
Silent silent.

This is my final fit,
my final bellyache,

with no alarms and no surprises,
no alarms and no surprises,
no alarms and no surprises please.

Such a pretty house
and such a pretty garden.

No alarms and no surprises (get me outta here),
no alarms and no surprises (get me outta here),
no alarms and no surprises, please.

Informationalist Plea for Burma (Myanmar)

I will try to not make this post long-winded. However, it is something I feel quite passionately about. I wish to present the Informationalist grounds for revolution in Myanmar, and why I think they deserve their idea of freedom. First, a short history of the region, which can be found in greater detail here.

We will begin for brevity's sake with decolonization. When WWII broke out the area of Burma was under the control of the British Empire. During the war it was taken and occupied by the Japanese for a time, and then retaken by the British before the end of the War. In 1948 as part of decolonization Burma gained independence from Great Britian and a Democratic Republic was set up known as the Union of Burma. This union lasted until 1962 when a military coup placed a dictator in power who ruled under the guise of Socialism.
In 1988 due to economic hardship and frustration the people rose up in pro-democratic demonstrations. This resulted in another military coup and an organization know as The State Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC came into power. This body renamed Burma Myanmar and promised democratic reform.
Free elections were held in 1990 with the National League for Democracy lead by Suu Kyi winning a clear majority of the vote. The elections were annulled, Suu Kyi was put in jail and thousands were killed in the suppression that followed. Kyi remains in prison and the world has been keen to let the brutal suppression continue...until this month.
Demonstrations begun by monks who practice Burma's strand a Buddhism began protests in favor of the jailed President. These demonstrations have accelerated into an all out organized movement against the SLORC. However, SLORC has one again moved to violently suppress the rebellions. In our society where Information is becoming easier to come by, they have cut Internet access and taken many unspeakable steps to make sure word of the oppression stays inside Burma.

An article on the most recent events can be found here.

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

As an Informationalist, I find this completely unacceptable. The SLORC is deliberately suppressing Information by violent means in order to maintain their grip on power. It is one of the most extreme examples of how the power of free Information is a dangerous to all forms of tyranny, be it over the mind, body, or both.
Also, as an Informationalist, I feel I must act in support of these people. So I implore the readers to do all you can to support this struggle. Write to your representatives, demonstrate. Gather all the data you can to bring to bear against this violent oppression. Remember, the good of the
I will be exploring ways in which action can be taken besides mere words on a Blog. I hope that you readers will join me.

All the best in this hour of human cruelty and possibility. individual cannot be separated from the good of the group. The group for Informationalists is all of humanity regardless of genetic makeup or gender. Perhaps this even applies to every sentient being.

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.