In this context, an information stream is a stream of information that largely fills the minds of all who are in it such that they know much more about that information than any other.
They value that stream and believe it or believe in it more than any other stream. All human cognition and psychology is taken from and conditioned by primary information streams.
Information streams are essentially “religions.” They include all of the world’s religions in addition to other fundamental belief systems such as science, politics, atheism, a life of crime, and so on.
Interpersonal communication is the most intimate or subjectively honest communication an individual human engages in.
The quality of our subjective honesty defines human life on planet earth, especially conscious human life.
The following follows:
- it is impossible for any individual human to know more than a few information streams well
- very few, if any, humans have really good interpersonal communication; very few are deeply, effectively, and richly subjectively honest with anyone else
- thus, virtually all humans are trapped within the confines of their information streams (“religions”) and their unrequited personal subjectivity
- and thus as a substitute, we fight or feel sad or become narcissistic or seek reclusion or take drugs or pursue money and power or sports and so on
I would maintain that once you see the above trap we humans are in, if you are of sound mind, you will want to escape.
We can never fully escape our need for some information stream (we have to have something) but we can escape to some extent by knowing that there are many information streams and none of them (as far as we know) can claim perfect information.
And, though we can never fully escape subjective isolation, we can escape to some extent by doing FIML practice.
The best way to view information streams is learn about a good many of them and then assign probabilities to how true they seem to you.
For example, I might hold that a materialist explanation of the cosmos has a 10-15% chance of being completely correct and a 25% chance of being a valid part of a larger whole that is more correct but has not yet been determined or discovered.
Assigning percentages mainly helps the mind categorize and assign resources. This, in turn, affects what we read, talk about, and do.
In addition to the percentages provided above, I might assign another 25% to the Buddhadharma and another 25% to the Buddhadharma plus all of the other world religions. Then I might assign 15% to the invented God argument and then some to the simulation argument and so on.
You can do this in any way that suits you. Your percentages don’t have to add up to one hundred, but it is good to have at least a rough calculus to provide some order to the many streams of information available to us.
My own percentages go up and down. The largest one is I cannot honestly be sure of very much but believe it is profoundly worth trying to be more sure or better at trying.
I believe the above description plus having some dedication to an endeavor sort of like that is a good definition of philosophical psychology.
To my eye, philosophical psychology is a good information stream to be in because it stresses how we think and what we think about while also paying full attention to our humanity.