Jump to content


Photo

Is The Non-Physical World Real?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 January 2016 - 04:15 PM

I guess there is a certan aounnt of irony in making the claim that the non physical world does not exxist. Why? Because the unreal world (excuse the paradox ) is what we validate the "real" physical world with.

And yet existent beings calling themselves atheists (the arbiters of existence) use "it" all the time to claim the non physical does not exist. They change the name of "it" to "supernatural" but as Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name..." I am talking about the lowly "thought" infomation's "smallest" componet of our mental life. Most of us use these non physicals to think. Don't alleged athists think? LOL

What is "its" (the thought's) physics, weight, dimension, color, sound, longevity etc.? Code is the thought's reprentative in the physical world. As individuals we can communicate with ourselves with pure information in our own mind, but we don't have the ability to communicate with others without using code. This is done by a learning process starting early in our life (as children). We agree with others for specific code to repesent and evoke the information stored in our minds. It allows us a private mental life but the ability to share it also.

Like everything God designed the process is exremely efficient and versatile.

Is our mental state real? If not how can we use it to validate the physical world?



#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 31 January 2016 - 06:59 PM

Is information, figures, data, etc. for real? Yes, and they are aphysical. 

 

One needs to define "physical" as well. 



#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 31 January 2016 - 08:55 PM

Thanks for a response, Mark. I thought this was going to be another one of my duds as an OP. LOL In a sense I am surppprised someone came forth. :)

google defintion excerpt for the word physical:

of or relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"pleasant physical environments"

synonyms: material, concrete, tangible, palpable, solid, substantial, real, actual, visible
"the physical universe"

There is no physics to information only its reppresentative code.

Confusng data, code, etc. the physical with information came down from inforattion theorist Claude Shannon. He made popula the "bit" as the sallest unit of information. But, a bit is not information only a physial variable assigned to represent information by intellegent minds. The code (word) "thought" represents the mental state's (spiritual) smallest unit of information.

Unfortunately, Shannon ammbigously defined code and information as per his seminole paper on information theory.

What follows is an example I use to explan the difference between code and information. My example:

6, VI, 8-2, 8-2=6, eighteen devided by three equalls six. Shannon would say all my examples contained different amounts of information with the last example having the highest aount of information. The average person would conclude all my examples would result in the same amount of inforation namely six (6).

Shannon's conclusion makes sense if you realize that he was thinking about saving space on a telephone line. He was concerned with a limited amount of space and so would be in favor of using the most efficient way of representing information with the smallest amount of code possible. Humans, as far I know, do not run out of memory nor get out of memory errors unless their brain is mal-functioning.

Aristotle's law of non-contradiction indicates that information and code are not the same things. The code you see on this page evokes information you agreed to asscoate to it in a prior lerning situation. Todays information theories seem to ignore the learning process as a major compneent of their theories. .


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#4 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 February 2016 - 12:47 PM

Is information, figures, data, etc. for real? Yes, and they are aphysical. 

 

One needs to define "physical" as well. 

 

Physical: that which has Dimensionality, which then can be reckoned by a single/any combination of the 5 senses.

 

Figures and Data are not " INFORMATION "...they can be the Antecedent to Information (Consequent).

 

regards



#5 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:25 PM

Is information, figures, data, etc. for real? Yes, and they are aphysical. 
 
One needs to define "physical" as well.

What is the reality of information apart from the medium in which it is stored?

#6 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:55 PM

Popoi



What is the reality of information apart from the medium in which it is stored?

That's the point. They are two separate concepts. There is no information stored in a book--only code. If you don't have the mental ability to process (read) then you will not evoke the proper information that has been associated by agreement to said code. For example if a book is Witten in say German code and you don't know that code to information system then you will not be able to evoke the code to information patterns. Observe that "raw" information is the same in all human beings.

Code is not a storage medium! It's more like a memory aid. How do you propose we get the information allegedly stored in code out of code--use a can opener? LOL

Information is a non-physical a function of being conscious. There is no physics to information.


As Enoch has pointed out, the five senses are traansducers. They are used by our body to pereceive our physical ennvironent to our non-physical mind.

For example you may not realize that sound is not a function of the physical world. In the physical world we have "sound" pressure deviations. As they say, If a tree falls in the forest will there be any sound? The answer is no. Sound only exists in the mental world (spiritual).

When the tree falls it diplace the atmosphere causing a pressure deviation. Our ear detects the pressure deviation and our mind uses it to create sound a mental concious state.

Here is an easy experiment to do with yourself.. Say something to yourself without making it verbal. If you do that you will have to use the non physical state and use pure inforation. Can you detect any physics? Still don't believe the mental exists and creates the physical world (quantum physics)? Then, close your eyes and see what happens. lol When you stop observing things they seem to cease to exist.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#7 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 03 February 2016 - 02:10 PM

Observe that "raw" information is the same in all human beings.

How can this be observed? What is that information outside of human beings?

Information is a non-physical a function of being conscious. There is no physics to information.

All of the conscious beings I know have quite a lot of physics to them. If there's not physics to information, what is there to it?

#8 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 February 2016 - 02:59 PM


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 February 2016 - 04:17 PM

Popoi

They have done autopsies on dead people looking for signs of information in their brains. They have never found It. Presumably if someone was murdered for example the person may have observed the person that was about to murder them. No dice. Without being alive and conscious there is no information. I invite you to give me some phyisics of information? Give me how much it weighs, its dimensions etc.

Mental soures of causation are invisibe.

The physical size of code has been steadly reduced over the years. The greatest density of storage or code is still DNA.

In the 60s for example a musical record was 12 inches wide. On both sides it stored about 40 minutes of analog code (commonly called music ).
Today thanks to the phenomena called LSI thousands of songs can be stored on a chip. However it still takes the human mind to turn code into music.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

And it's the same with you. The Code on my screen is evidence to me that you caused it by your invisible mental activity. The effect of Alexander G. Bell's mental activity is the telephone. The effect of Darwin's mental activity is his book Origin of Species. The thoughts that caused this stuff are nowheree to be found physically. All that is visible is code. Code is an effect not a cause.



#10 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 February 2016 - 09:00 PM

Have you ever noticed every area of specialization has its own sub-lingo. In the printing buisness there is the phrase to scum a plate and offsett as oppoed to letter press.

Sometimes the sub-lingo has its own acronyms which those not of the vocation will not unerstand. In TV production there is the acronym SEG and 'green screen' which when I started in television was called chroma key or blue screen. I suspect it was changed because lots of people have blue eyes something you will understnd if you have a rudimentary association with the industry. The HVAC-R acronym stands for Heating Ventilating air conditioning and refrigeration. The R was fairly recently added with some resistance because some felt refrigeration deserved its own group. In the past there was a rivalry going on between the HVAC and the refrigeration folks because they believed they deserved their own group.

In the audio recording vocation, technical specifications are given in acronymms such as DB's (decibels)--a measure of sound pressure deviation. In the area of automotive repair there is an ancronym used to to let another mechanic know that the disadvantges of working on a vehicle may outweigh the advantages. Code OTJ=Old Tired Junk. lol

In the psyychology field there is the acronym, DC (dificult customer) signalling a clients non-compliannce. A client is though to have pathology when they are meth heads. One theory claims depletion of neuro transmitters causes depression. The problem so far is that no one has been able to determine whether depression is caused by by neuro transmitter depletion or if depression causes neuro transmitter depletion. It's a in knd of a chicken or egg scenario. LOL

I believe the five sesnses are part of an interface between the physical world and the mental (spirit) world. They are transducers--device that change one kind of energy into another. For example an electric windmil changes kinetic energy into electricl energy.

My pet theory of communication as opposd to the status quo says code is neeeded as information can not transmigrate the physical realm. People have to use code to communicate. They can only comunicat with themselves internlly via pure information.

Most people believe code stores meaning hence the statement, the information stored in a book. However the Rosetta Stone, Pavlov's experiments and the presence of numerous language code systems indicates while differnt code can be used to access information, basic information is the same in all people.

The bible says all the deception people are
subjected to is a part of an elaborate deception a fallen angel has fosterd off on mankind! I am so happy his deception is beginning to unravle. I think its so cool all of us have a part in undoing his deception. Can you imagine what our world will be like when all of us accept responsibility and stop playing the role of victim! We can use our creativity to create things for everyone to enojoy. Wow!



#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 February 2016 - 07:52 PM

The reighning Guru's of information theory, Werner Gitt and Dembski for the creationists and Claud Shannon for the alleged atheists/ evolutionists fail to make much of the leaning process aspect wth their communication theories. Their omission is a glaring omission to be sure!

It's hard to believe we can forget that there was a learning process that as young children we went through where we leaned to associate firstly verbal code to information and then written code to verbal code to information. This was initiated by mom and Dad and then continud (usually) in a clasroom setting. Remember, first grade, second, etc.? We leaned to spell words (code)! We leaned word (code) meanings! How could we forget? We had to use our vovabulary iword in a senence. Remember?

Gitt makes the mistake of trying to "define" information which is the beginning of his stray from the straight and narrow. He ends up doing the same thing Shanno did-- cinfusing code with informtion. He might as well try to define conciousness. Good luck with that!

IMHO there is no need to define information as we all know intutuitively what it is as a function of conciousness, life and intelligence.

Most of us are aware that there is a difference between the physical and the non physical mental world--the world of thought.

Shannon defines code and information as virtually the same things! That seems to ignoe Aristotle's law of non contradicton. If, for example, we agree my name is Mike, if you say Bill, I will most likely assume that you are not talking to me! Acknowledgment of the difference between Mike and Bill iitself equals two units of unique information. Therefore claiming information is chemical will no negate differences between the twounique units of information. We will still detect them (Mike & Bill) as different. lol "Much ado about nothing".

"You ignorant so and so Mike S. The sun does not travel across the sky". To which I would reply; "I know but it sure looks like it does"! LOL A rose by anyother name would smell the same!

Most of us are aware we have a memory. That memory coupled with our innate learnng abilities means we sit on a vast amount of "stored" informtion. Because of our memory function at any point in time the vast majority of that information is pre-oncious most of the time.

Nevertheless, we can make information stored in memory concious anytime we wish. This is done by a stimuli or question. For example "What is your name"? The question or stimuli iniates a queery of our memory. Voila! Our mind makes said information concious. Try any question and see. For example, "How old are you"? etc.

As another function of our mind, we have the ability to reason without making it concious. I have heard people say, I will sleep on it! Most of us seem only vaguely anwae of this. In fact, neuro scientists claim the human mind can reason 10 times faster if we do not request that the process be made concious. When it's not, it's called intuition.

A boxer knows if he has to conciously think what fist to throw next he will probably be knocked on his butt. Gilbo pointed out once that a baseball player swings his bat before the ball is anwyhere near his bat! That's just how well our mind is designed for contingency as Mike the wiz would say.

At any given time our mind is multi-tasksing and we are blisfully unaware of it. For example, our mind is caring for by oxyginating, feedng, removing the by producs of metabolism for over upwrdsof 50 trillion cells. Not only that but, each of those cells seems to be concious.

At first it was believed that the brains of the cell was the nucleus. However, scientits tried e-nuclcleating some cells and some of the cells were able to live for up to two months. It was only when the cell needed to use the code stored in the nuclus to make repairs that the cell acessed the nucleius. Until that point the cell lived without its nucleus. As a whole, we would not be able to do that without our brain.

Each cell has thousans of gates on it. These gates can open and shut up to 3500 times per second to let molecules of oxygen, food in and expel the by products of cellular metabolism. To do that, the cell needs to "know" the difference between a molecule of food and a mollecule of waste.

At my last reading, it was thought the cell membrane was the brain of the cell and IBM had conceted a chip to a cell and used the chip to open and close cellular gates.

Our blood circulates through our 67,000 mile long cardiovascular system at a measly 3mph. Still, the furthest extreme of our body is less than a minute away from fresh blood. Our mind cordinates unconciously (it is multi-tasking millions of operations at any moment in time) all this activity. It can dispatch nano vehicles though the blood system to attend the apppropriate cells as needed. It apparently knows whee each cell is off its 67,000 niw hifgway.

At any moment in time 300 milion cells die in the body. When our skin cells die they fall harmlessly off of us. It is estimated that 80% of the "dust" circulating in our homes is dead skin cells! However, deep in the body, when cells die they need to be disposed or they will contaminate living cells and cause necrosis. Phagocytes immediately isolate a dead cell and dismatle it using nano vehicless traveling though the blood at over 200mph to carry it away to be dsposed of.

The body's GPS system is second to none. Close your eyes and tell your right had to plaace itsel on top of your head. Notice how effotlessly it does what you tell to do.

Depending on the type of cells, a cell lives no longer than 7 years. The cells that make up our rods and cones are replaced every two weeks as they wear out fairly quickly. We can imagine what a huge undetaking (pun ntended lol) maintenance of the body is. Nevertheless, our mind's ability to coordinate all the millions of functions indicate the vast majority of our mental funnction is pre-concious.

One of the arguments used that we do not have free choice is that we become aware of reasoning a few seconds after actual decision making. However, that's not to say we have not made choices. It's just the system is so well thought out and efficient! Let's see. How can I demonstraate what is going on scientifially?

I call to mind, Russian Scieentist Pavlov's
experiment called classical conditioning--a a learning process. A bell is rung and some dogs are then fed. After a few times, whenever the bell is is rung, the dogs start to salivate (in anticpaton of being fed). If we "think" about it, we can easily conclude that the dogs "learned' to associate the bell ringing with being fed. But, it would be wrong to conclude the bell causes the dogs to salivate! For, in a control group when a bell is rung and those dogs are not fed, the bell can be rung and those dogs do not salivate no matter how many times the dogs hear the bell.

We conclude the dogs "learned" to associate the bell ringing (code) to a yet future event. Thus the dogs learned to anticipate a future event to a stimuli (code) and be ready for eating on cue. This is similar to an actor learning his lines for a play. He most likely will rehearse "his" lines so that he can at a future time his lines on cue. Depsite the fact he knows his lines so well does not mean he didn't "choose" to learn them!

Consider a client persenting to me with great anxiety. Actually, it could be any negative emotion. The client typically is only vaguely aware that he has learnd to associate a stimuli (code) or an event to the emotion axniety at some time in the past--as the actor learnned his lines. Thus my client's mind dutufully has automated the cognitive constructs that trigger his or her anxiety through a learnng process! This is usually based on erroneous predictions of how awful somethhing is going to be. Therefore, he or she concludes they "must" avoid the "offending" stimuli. "It" even approaching them "seems" to trigger automaqtically trigger anxiety and thus avoidance behavior.

Moreover, they have forgotten how they "agreed" or learned to associate the "negative" emotion of anxiety or whatever to the stimuli. They often become dysfunctional because of the alleged horrors of a trigger event. Unforunately, their negative emotion iniates avoidannnce of often both harmless events and even beneficial events. 'It" "appears" that the stimuli causes their negative emotion but it is they that have dubiuosly set themselvess up, like my actor example and mis diagnosed the stimuli as causing their negative emotion. They know their lines so well there is no need for concious thught as the need for concious awreness of thought has been overuled for efficiancy's sake. Thus, the aatheist/ evolutionis/ materialists claim of no free choice is utter nonsnse!

Moreover, based on yet other imagined horros of being wrong, a coient often will defend tooth and nail their dellusion and will try to avoid confronting their nonsense! This is what Job tried with God. God did not let Job get away with it! I risk my cliennt's anger by making an effort to correct them!! Wrong! They risk their anger!!! For I have long since given up the neurotiac agreement that soneone's anger can do anything to me! Likewise if we sin, will it shake God from His throne? Hardly!

Someone was asked why they did what Hitler asked them? They replied, "You have never seen the Furher angry"! Note; the neurotic ageement?! I don't let a client get away with blaming their anger on me, another, or anythhing else for that matter!
The minute they start down that path, I will stop them and correct them!

"You mean dont you? You observed me or another say or do what we did and then lied to yourself telling yourself that I or another shouldn't have said or did what I or another said or did! "Then you further lied to yourself mis-dignosing it and claiming falsely I, another or an event had some magical power over you! "it" caused you to be angry! Wrong!"

"My thought and only my thoughts trigger my emotions. Your thoughts and only your thoughts iniate your emotions"!

I am bound and determend come hell or high water that such is the case and care enough for them to let them know this truth even though they may threaten me with rejection or ignore me! Nor do I believe in the "horrors" of their rejection. Seven billion other people have been able to live without their love. Even though I might desire their friendship, I refuse to "need" it! They will not suceed at bullying me. No! I am not going to form a neurotic agreement with them. Time for them to grow up!

Many people have automated their disturbance by enlessly reheasing their lines so that it seems their disturbance is caused by extenal stimmuli. As stated ad nauseum; We are dong it to ourself and the only way to stop is to quit. But then suit yourelf! However, you are without excuse. Someone does care about you enough to tell You what you are doing! Now, stop lieing to yourself and accept reality! Make "it" a good day!





 



#12 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 February 2016 - 09:22 PM

Ok



#13 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 11 February 2016 - 07:12 AM

Ok

 

Something really fishy going on here. I know it isn't Bonedigger.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 February 2016 - 12:53 PM

It would be best if members said who they were when they post, Cal. (I am mike-the-wiz, so if a different name shows you know it is not that person posting.)

 

I suppose Bonedigger, might have said, "okay" and it realy was Bonedigger, to be honest, "ok" isn't much to go on even for Sherlock Holmes. ;) But I doubt Bonedigger would just say, "ok" like that, without at least informing us about some technical names of the bones of an alligator.

 

:D 



#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 February 2016 - 05:56 PM

Mike the wiz said:

It would be best if members said who they were when they post, Cal. (I am mike-the-wiz, so if a different name shows you know it is not that person posting.)

I suppose Bonedigger, might have said, "okay" and it realy was Bonedigger, to be honest, "ok" isn't much to go on even for Sherlock Holmes. ;) But I doubt Bonedigger would just say, "ok" like that, without at least informing us about some technical names of the bones of an alligator.

Mike and Cal are right! The system signed me in as Bone and I wanted to see if "it" would also let me post as him. "It" did. "Ok" was my test post. I was going to delete the post but the system kicked me off and since there is a time window of how long a post can be edited that time window passed and I couldn't edit or delete the post. furthermore when I got back on I was logged in as Mke Summers. The system does not allow us to delete or edit another person's post.

As the very intelligent beings they are, Mike the wiz and Cal recognized that the post was not the "pattern" the would expect from Bonee! Mike would make a great detective or terapist! His keen mind flagged the post as having issues!

Each of the cells in our body has an error correcting function which somehow needs to know what the code means (the information that is suposed to be associated to it). Since the Foruums progam is not concious like we are it did not "know" my fingers were pressing the keys that caused the "Ok" to appeaar on your sreens. Sorry! My thoughts actually directed my fingers to press the keys that resulted in "Ok" Not Bone's.

This reminds me of a story I read when I was studying AI (artifical intelligence)--of the problems it evoked--particularly when it comes to computer visual rccognition.

Say we have a photo of you and several people from their waists up. In othe words it does not show your full body. Worse yet another person's body is blocking display of your arms. Computers are stupid! They can only add an compare. Since some of your body is below the camea's angle, the AI dilima would be to determne whether this is a photo of a three headed monster or three people. Because we are intelligent and concious, our mind supplys the missing visual information withou a whimper "Oh" says you, "This is a picture of me and my two friends. The legs and the rest of their body exist but are not shown. But I have enough information to idntify them. I would recognize Bil and Dave's ugly mugs anywhere! Yep that's a picturee of them and me!"

Read the following sentence in English code: "Please give me a glass of water"? Notice, the auto complete function of your mind. There is no subjece in the sentence! Your mind automatically supplied the subject of the sentence (you) even though it was not mentioned.

When the Star Was defense system was being developed there was a story they were testing some of its code as the system used video cameras to identify baalistcc mssiles in flight.

Well, according to the story, the systems cameras were aimed at the night sky and the program identified six ICBM's flying in formation past the reflection of the moon. Some enterprising human looked at the sky and correctly identified a false alarm! It was just a bunch of ducks flying in formation not the begining of World War three! lol

It doess demomstate how easy it is to associate different informaton to code.

Here is a thought experiment to demonstrate your minds error catching mechanism. See how well you do--why the mutation--evo mechaanism is questionable.

"O sa kan u sea bi thu dons Earl Lee lite whut so prowd Lee..." Does this mutated code evoke new information?

 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 February 2016 - 04:24 AM

 

 

Mike S: As the very intelligent beings they are, Mike the wiz and Cal recognized that the post was not the "pattern" the would expect from Bonee! Mike would make a great detective or terapist! His keen mind flagged the post as having issues!

 

You're very kind Mike, and I like the example of the photo. That's why you're right about information not being the same as code because really it is the intelligence of the mind which is the best computer there is, and obviously the intelligence in the living cell even exceeds our intelligence.



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 February 2016 - 07:10 AM

Test



#18 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 February 2016 - 08:11 PM

Mike,
Glad you see it!

It seems to me that life (ntelligence) animates matter. "God" is life which He sometimes calls His Holy spirit. I noticed whenever His spirit is disassociated from matter biological life (the evidence or effect) DNA (Code) still remains.

So, then as usual evo's get it backwards. They seem to believe that code (the physical) causes life when it's really life (God's holy spirit intelligence) that animates matter and matter is the effect of the non- physical mental (spritual) world. As with QM.

So, since God is life and he has always existed the law of biogenesis has not been violated. Everything alive and everything physical (code) is the effect of the non- physical invisible (spiritual) mental world that is God. "I am the way the truth and the life".

Since we share intelligence conciousness (life) we can take matter, create an automobile and numerous other "inventions". Not even our blinded brothers will claim our inventions evolved. Their intellgence prevents them from fully believing "evo" could casue a computer and such things to evolve! So then they are a mixture of good and evil that God says he does not like.

It follows logically that the DNA Code has to be read by life (intelligence) similar to us reading a book (that requires intelligence).
Apparently the intelligence involved in the cell has to "know" what the code means to create the phenotype.

Scientists have shown that DNA code is more than just chemicals interacting with each other as evo's wish to believe. Code is actually code and exclussie of the information it is associated to.

Goku points out in one of his posts that we have to assume things he calls axioms. He is right. There are 26 symbols in the English Alphabet. Part of of the function of intelligence consists of pattern recogntion. I used many of the letters in the alphabet over and over in this post. So, again its not the individual code itself responsible but the patten or sequence along with the number of inndividual code units that makes up a word that is involved in intelligent beings using code to communicate with each other.

To know what info to evoke from the code a prior learning session is necessary (when we learned to associate code to information (spell--specific order as Dembski speaks of).

If you notice there are no words in this post that you probably have not associated information to. Moreoover a lot of words paterns repeat through out the post. Some words are used over and over. This would be a problem especially when we realize what Werner Gitt calls the apoetics or the pupose of the communication process.

Communication is said to take place when ignorance is ether decreased or informaation is increased in the receiver. But how can that happen since you already know all the meaning of the individual words I have used?

By the transmitter varying the pattern, sequence, number of words used to form sentences the receiers mind based on pattern recognition can create "new" information from what they already know. Thus information never leaves our mind only code. No information tansmigrated the physical realm but the receiver creates new information in their mind evoked by code fromus.

The fallen being Satan knew this processs when he elected to deceive Adam and Eve into believing "code" (their physical environment) could control their mental life.
It takes a neurotic agreement a la deception to get another to cause their own disturbance (misdiagnosing causation) and blame it on the environment or another all on cue. Wow! What a deception!

Building on Goku's insight on assumptions
consider a cook book. A priori knowledge is necessary to make any of its recipes which demonstrate a true process that, unlike evo is known beforehand. It is observble (the process starts with a known goal) is testable and repeatable.

To effectiely use a recipe in a cook book, like making a cake, we need to "know" what an egg is. Snce there are severaal types of eggs, we generally assume what type of egg to use commonly a "chicken" egg not an ostrach egg. The cookbook does not usually say. We need to know not to confuse salt with sugar although that would be be easy to do since we assume the label on the box marked salt or sugar is corect. See how important faith is and why God says not to lie? It just cause confusion! No one wants a salty cake!

Now if we can just convince the rest of mankind to stopb believing Sataan's lie, stop disturbing themselves and learn like Paul to be content. One down and 7 billion to go? LOL :)

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..."--Jer 1:5



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 February 2016 - 03:48 AM

 

 

Mike S: So, then as usual evo's get it backwards. They seem to believe that code (the physical) causes life when it's really life (God's holy spirit intelligence) that animates matter

 

That's right Mike, and the life came before the code. Basically the whole thing with the code, has to come first, but with evo it makes no sense, they are arguing that lifeless, dead matter would arrange itself into specified complexity. (read my signature for more) :)

 

As for Gitt, I read about 70% of his book, a lot of which seemed untelligible, he is by no means the most eloquent and it is a hard read. I think his definition of information is good as long as he replaces it as a definition of CODE, as I really do think you have had an insight there. I would say your insight is important enough to contact creation-scientists as they need a Summers-code Law.

 

I am sure Goku would agree Mike. Lol



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:44 AM

Hi Mike

I have realized for sometime it was a piece of the puzzle that could help creationists. However, I am at a loss of how to get their attention--to get past their "filter system".

I had an idea for an exhbit for the creation museum. I called it the Puzzle of life. It was a large plexiglass box with thousands of pieces of a picture puzle in it. A blower would come on and blow all the pieces up in the air and then shut off. The idea was to demonstrate the lkelyhood of the pieces randomly assemblling themselves to form a completed picture like the fully assembled version. Ian Juby, a creationist from Canada asked my permission to use the idea. I said yes.

So I made an effort to contact him about my information discovery via e-mail. I never heard from him. I am sure those places get lots of e-mails and probably don't have the staff to go through all them.

Information Garu, Claud Shannon supposedly created an information generating machine. When he explained it, it was an algorythm that if you input code such as ABCD, it would randomize output. Thus BACD, DABC, BCAD, CADB, etc untl stopped. Shannon was the information Garu that led everyone to believe information and code were the same things. If you asked what the code meant there was silence!

Gitt thinks code is necessary for the communication process. But God does not need code to communicate with us nor us with HIm. I am sure you know that. Nor do we have to use code to communicate with ourselves. It is socially frowned upon to talk outloud to yourself. LOL :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users