|
Distinguish friend from foe. For more information, contact: Gary Schouborg, PhD (925) 932-1982 |
Schouborg, Gary
(2007). "Freedom
and Information Processing". Freedom and Information
Processing Gary Schouborg Friedrich Hayek is
a more profound thinker than Milton Friedman. Or, perhaps more accurately,
Hayek historically and logically lays the foundation for Friedman. Whereas
Friedman tends to talk of freedom, Hayek grounds freedom in the more
elemental notion of information. It's because we are information processing
animals that freedom is necessary to us. Without that insight, appeals to
freedom are merely moral, metaphysical ideology leading to the endless and
sterile debates of individualism v. collectivism. [Question from
John Crillo: Gary, I'm missing something. What is
the necessary connection (that I think you say exists) between information
processing and the function of freedom? Or maybe I should ask: what is your
concept of freedom in this context?] Good question.
Information processing by animals is a four-stage cycle of perception
(information input), identifying alternative courses of action, deciding
among them, and acting (output) upon them. The more complex the animal, the
more information it can process, which in turn provides it with that many
more alternative courses of action. To say that information processors demand
freedom is simply to say that they are compelled to choose among the alternatives
with which they are presented. There are roughly
three levels of information processing: 1. Current
computers process information outside of the four-stage, action-oriented
cycle referred to above. Their processing, at least to date, is only in
support of human information processing. 2. Non-human
animals process information that allows them to choose alternative
courses of action. The scope of choices grows in proportion to the animal’s
processing power. 3. Humans
process information whose scope and consequent freedom of choice are
relatively unlimited compared to animals. Human information
processors (HIP) are therefore inherently presented with alternative courses
of action among which they are compelled to choose. Consequently, when interacting
with other humans, they demand to be free to act on the available
information. When individual interests collide, they can choose along a
continuum from winner-take-all competition at one end, through compromise
along the middle, to unconditional surrender at the other end. It’s a
critically important question to identify under what conditions the best
political choice might be for tyranny or democracy and the best economic
choice might be for a command economy or free markets. Libertarians are
pretty HIP, since they greatly appreciate this core structure of human
processing. However, libertarians are not truly HIP or wise, since they
overlook that individuals are in fact unequal in their access to information
and their ability to process it. In fact, the weaker processors will create
constraints on the stronger to reduce the chances of being exploited by them
and to maximize their own power. Wise, truly HIP
politicians will step in to optimize the conflict among individuals of
varying degrees of processing power, since too much constraint on strong
processors kills the goose that creates the golden egg of wealth (economic,
cognitive, spiritual) and too little constraint kills the mass consumers of
that wealth whose labors provide resources necessary to the stronger
processors (e.g., food, shelter, services). Neither American
political party seems very HIP, since neither exhibits much wisdom or
optimizing power. Republicans
somewhat see the virtues of free economic markets but are beholden to cultural
conservatives who would excessively constrain cognitive and spiritual
markets. I say "somewhat see," because too many Republicans are
willing to constrain economic markets for their own gain. Democrats somewhat
see the virtues of cognitive and spiritual markets, but are beholden to
socialists who would excessively constrain economic markets. I say
"somewhat see," because too many Democrats are willing to constrain
ideas that they deem unrighteous. What we need are
truly HIP politicians, but our only moderately HIP citizenry is unable to
produce them. That said, the US remains the most HIP nation in history and
the one that holds the most promise of increasing HIPness
in the future. |
