Jump to content


Photo

Communication Systems


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,381 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 June 2017 - 11:36 AM

Communinication systems.

A communication system can be broken down into its raw components: they are a him and transmitter/ receiver, transmission lines and code. These are the physical components of any communication system.

What the purpose or function of a communication system? That can be stated several ways. Communication is said to take place when ignorance is decreased in the receiver at the other end of the communication line. Put another way, communication takes place when information is increased in the receiver.

But we have a dilemma! information is non physical. Information is not available in the physical realm. Nor can it transmigrate the physical realm. God solved this dilemma by creating code. By associating code to information, code can take the place of information in the physical realm. In a learning process code is associated to information available only in the human mind or mental state.

A message or information is created in the transmitter/ receiver (the human mind). Because information can not transmigrate the physical realm, code (aural or visiual) is substituded as a representative of information for the physical realm. The code "represents" the non physical informatiion in the form of words, audible or visual code. Code, not information is transmitted over communication lines.

HJuman Code consists of sound or symbols (the alphabet sequenced in speific patterns of light and dark on paper or a computer screen. The receiver/ transmitter at the end of the communication line detects code (visual or aural) and matches it with the information associated to it and stored in the receivers mind. The process requires that both the transmitter and receiver associate the same information to specific code.

The code information relationship is often referred to as vocabulary. The average person has at least 13,000 words in their vovabulary. By combining words in various ways all kinds of information can be conveyed and share with others. Otherwise we would all be islands.

Claude Shannon popularized the mathematical theory of informatiion. What he did not realize was that information is not physical. Thus, he defined information and code as essentially the same things. As I have detailed above they have different functions and their own identities.

Claude invented a machine (as he called it-- today we call it an algorythm) that with code input could generate random strings of code. Since he considered code information, it appeared that information did not need a mental sourcce. If a string of code such as our alphabet was input into the his algorithm, it would randomize and output code strings. Thus, ABCDEF input would result in DCDA, ABC, DFED, etc. until intervention. He called his "machine" a random "information" generator.

Here is the problem. If we were to detect the randomly generated code (he falsey called information), we would have but one question? "What does it mean?" Since there was no mental process involved to mutually agree (it takes at least two intelligent beings) to associate information to code, this code would evoke no information in a receiver. "What information are we to associate to ACDEFE? ?"

In the human body, there is an elaborate complex communications system. We can make a valid analogy to our brain as a computer. A computer needs softlware to function (an operating system). But again, we have a problem. The body is physical. We need information (we think with pure information) so, we need something to translat information to code to communicate with the different organs in the body. The individual cells need to be able (intelligent) to know what the code "means". In a muscle for example they all have to pull in the same direction when ordered by our brain (us) to do so.

There are millions upon millions of calculation going on in our mind. Multitasking in the millions requires very complicated software and procesding power (speed).

When Darwin created his theory of evolution, he was not aware of the need for software. Thus, he did not seem to realize that if a novel new function evolved there would need to be a software update to control the new function. Ooops! In the theory of evolution, there is no mechanism for evolution of software.

A bird with newly evolved wings would need to know to flap the wings to accomplish flight. We can realize the significance of software communication systems when our spinal colum is damaged significantly. In such cases, code generated by our mind cannot reach our muscles in say our legs. The muscles consisting of millions of cells may be healthy but they do not know what to do because no instructions gets to them to tell them what to do. Communication in the body has broken down. No software (no instructions) nothing gets done.

Darwinian evolution, has proposed no mechanism for the evolution of software to control anything in plants or animals. Perhapsevo's need to update their theory to make it "believable" in the 21st century.
No software, no communication system--nothing works.



#2 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 June 2017 - 05:38 AM

Darwinian evolution, has proposed no mechanism for the evolution of software to control anything in plants or animals.

i believe this is one of the critical aspects of abiogenesis, not evolution proper.
this could also be one of the reasons for irreducible complexity in regards to the cell.
an entire host of molecules must come together in a coordinated effort to achieve this.

#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,381 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 June 2017 - 08:38 AM

What if said:
 

Mike Summers: Darwinian evolution, has proposed no mechanism for the evolution of software to control anything in plants or animals.

What if: i believe this is one of the critical aspects of abiogenesis, not evolution proper.
this could also be one of the reasons for irreducible complexity in regards to the cell.
an entire host of molecules must come together in a coordinated effort to achieve this.

The software that runs us coordinates (sends instructions to) those 10 all important organs that Blitz speaks of. We have all told 78 organs.

We have a "GPS" system second to none. It has mapped our body and even if we close our eyes we can order our hand and fingers to touch any part of our body.
We have a holgraphic generator function of our software so that when we are anywhere it will orient iu upwardsly (or any other position we might choose) and give us feedback of our geigraphic location.

At any one time 300 or so of our cells die.
Skin cells die and fall off us. Washing our body gets rid of dead skin cellls also. 80% of what we call dust in our homes is dead cells. Put a new air filter in your furnace (lol).

When cells within the body die a comunication loop iniates a fucntiion that isolates the dead cell and dismantles it shipping it with precise coordinates to the exact location for elimination on the 67,000 mile long highway we call our cardiovascular system. The nano vehicles used to truck away the dismantled cell have to "know" where they are going.

Our 100 trillion cells have to be regularly fed. So, our software coordinates feeding, oxygenating and eliminating the waste of those 100 trillion cells. All we have to do is
shovel food in our mouth and our software coordinates digestion to portion out the nutriennnts in the food so that it can be transported through the blood to feed our 100 trillion cells.

Our blood is a moving highway that travels at a slow 3mph. At that speed it takes aproximately one minute for blood to get to the most remote point in our body,
That's to slow for delivering adrenalin to our muscle cells for the "fight or flight response!" So, our supports nano vehicles which can traverse our blood at 200mph.

Our cpu and software supports millions of mutitasking operation at any one time. I have described only a few of our softwares fuctions. Nor, have I disgussed the part it plays in our mental life--managing our memory system and making information avaiablle to our concious state upon our request.

Our brain processes 4000 billion bits of code (mistakenly called information) per second but only 2000 is made conccious. Our software only makes "significant" information concious (signficant to us).

\How did all these instructions write themselves? What is their evolutionary mechanism? Any computer programmer knows how tedious and how necessary intelligence is in writing software that won't crash for one of our "simple" electronic computers. Darwin was clueless!


  • mike the wiz likes this

#4 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 June 2017 - 01:03 PM

The nano vehicles used to truck away the dismantled cell have to "know" where they are going.

packets sent over the internet don't "know" where they are going, but they get there.
how?
because they are "tagged" with an "address".
maybe this is how molecules find their way around in the cell.
this is the reason i say there might be a "molecular language" we aren't aware of.

Our brain processes 4000 billion bits of code (mistakenly called information) per second but only 2000 is made conccious. Our software only makes "significant" information concious (signficant to us).

i agree that the brains processing abilities are phenomenal.

\How did all these instructions write themselves? What is their evolutionary mechanism? Any computer programmer knows how tedious and how necessary intelligence is in writing software that won't crash for one of our "simple" electronic computers. Darwin was clueless![/size][/b]

correct.
there is simply no way a complex control program could EVER be ascribed to "chance".

#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,381 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 June 2017 - 01:52 PM

What if:

packets sent over the internet don't "know" where they are going, but they get there.
how?

IP ad·dress
nounComputing
plural noun: IP addresses
a unique string of numbers separated by periods that identifies each computer using the Internet Protocol to communicate over a network.
As it was explained to me in a class I took every packet of code is given an IP adress.



#6 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:07 AM

The nano vehicles used to truck away the dismantled cell have to "know" where they are going.

[P]ackets sent over the internet don't "know" where they are going, but they get there.
[H]ow?
[B}ecause they are "tagged" with an "address".
...

.
What's the purpose of the quotes around the word 'address?' There is no ambiguity or uncertainty. This is not disputable for the reason that the address that represents the destination is a physical location, as an address in a phone-book represents a location. Your three pseudo-sentences create confusion.

With respect to the function of "the nano vehicles", do we know that every "dismantled cell" is disposed properly? If less than 100% are handled properly, then we may conclude something different than the case of 100% perfect disposal.

#7 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 June 2017 - 12:07 PM

The nano vehicles used to truck away the dismantled cell have to "know" where they are going.

[P]ackets sent over the internet don't "know" where they are going, but they get there.
[H]ow?
[B}ecause they are "tagged" with an "address".
...

.
What's the purpose of the quotes around the word 'address?' There is no ambiguity or uncertainty. This is not disputable for the reason that the address that represents the destination is a physical location, as an address in a phone-book represents a location. Your three pseudo-sentences create confusion.

sorry, it's habit i need to break.

#8 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:16 AM

The nano vehicles used to truck away the dismantled cell have to "know" where they are going.

[P]ackets sent over the internet don't "know" where they are going, but they get there.
[H]ow?
[B}ecause they are "tagged" with an "address".
...

.
What's the purpose of the quotes around the word 'address?' There is no ambiguity or uncertainty. This is not disputable for the reason that the address that represents the destination is a physical location, as an address in a phone-book represents a location. Your three pseudo-sentences create confusion.

sorry, it's habit i need to break.

.
Are you sorry about the pseudo-sentences, the errant double quotes, creating confusion or not signaling a new paragraph in some manner--a blank line, for example; all of the above? I do NOT read your larger collections of non-delimited paragraphs as they are too difficult to unravel.

#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,381 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:10 PM

If the theory of information we use is incorrect, it will cause errors in reasoning.

There are two theories that are commonly accepted today. One is a theory made popular by the reigning garu Claude Shannon. The other theory is basically for creationists authored by Wener Gitt.

It was Shannon that defined code and information interchangeably giving the impression that they are one and the same things. That action violated the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. This confusion between the two separate identities of code and information help to generate a lot of mis-communication and wrong conclusions.

In order to unravel the confusion caused by this, we need to deliniate and clearly define code and information. We will discover that code does not "store" information.

We know of no place that information can inhabit accept a mental state. Thus Information resides only in a mental state (our mind and others). This poses a problem for communication between us and others. If we cannot transmit thoughts (pure formation) from our mind to others we would be isolated from others.

Helen Keller was in such a state until a teacher came along and invented a special touch code for her to communicate with others. Today we have the touch code braille, which is commonly used by blind people. Helen was deaf and blind. She couldn't hear to learn sound code.
However, even though she could hear hwe gifted teacher taught her to approximate audible code (words). Her speech lacked the nuance level detail we expect from others.

We seem to look in vain for the physics of information. What, for example, is the weight, height, color, length, width, taste etc. of information? As of yet no one has come forth with any physics of information.
And yet formation is something that we deal with in our minds or mental state every day.

All of us know what information is intuitively and because of that there is no need to define it other than to call it information. Considered it a core concept. Information is information. So, If we accept and acknowledge the mental state we accept the existence of information.

Now code--that's another story. What is code? Since we cannot send pure information or our thoughts through the air, to others, we have figured out a way to represent information in the physical world by the use of code.

Code is anything physical, which we can associate the information in our mind to. Ink on paper is code or matter with physics given specific order. What we commonly call our alphabet can be used to create words (code strings) to which we associate meaning from our mind.

Probably the most common use of code is in the concept we call language. Thus we have a speech system which allows us to create unique sounds and associate meaning or information in our mind to the particular sounds we can create.

Since we have no way of transmitting pure thought, or information through thin air and into the physical environment, we can generate audible code which which when coupled with consensus meaning can represent the information in our minds. Consensus is necessary for the process to work efficiently.

Let's see if we can think of an example to demonstrate this? Suppose we have mis-associated the "wrong" (different) information to the word (aural or visual code) cow? Probably, others have associated cow, to a four-legged creature that weighs about 1200lbs and gives us milk. If we have associated a four-legged creature that weighs about 60 pounds to the code "cow", we would mis-communicate when we talk with others about a cow. For the process to work there must be consensus as to the meaning we give (cow) code.


Take note of the fact that code does not store information. We can't look at the code c-o-w under a microscope and find the DNA of a cow. All we will see is the smaller components of the ink and paper. There are no instructions to make a cow in the letters c-o-w.

It is important than that we understand that if DNA is it code cannot store information. Code and information have two different identities. Code is not a storage medium.

Moreover, code is a variable. It can represent whatever information we decide to associate to it. Code is associate to information in a mental state by intelligent beings. Sometimes we call this meaning. But the information is stored in the mental state only--not in code! Thus code is a representative of information for use in the physical realm.

Mutations involves physically changing code (a physical). But, what if the code that mutates already represents information? That would mean there was no new information generated by the code, but that the code representing information was simply not appropriate (it wasn't there before). It ended up there by mistake.

Here is a sentence that demonstrates what might happen; "The dog ran up the red."
We might think the sentence doesn't make sense. It mutated. The code r-e-d was suppose to be h-i-l-l. "The dog ran up the hill, makes sense.

The word "red" has been associated to an entirely different mental meaning than the word "hill". Logically, this mutation did not create new information it substituted different information to a location in the sentence.

A mutation of a word could makes sense but change the basic meaning of what was done. "The dog ran up the plank! Say "plank" is a mutation from "hill". The mutation, though not causing new information, changes the entire meaning we associated to what the dog actually did.

There is no information in a book. A book consists of code strings of ink on paper (commonly called words). We have to "read" a book. What is involved in reading a book? It requires we match in our mind the symbols we find in the book that we have in a prior learning situation associated to information stored in our mind or mental state. Thus, code represents information but does not store it.

We, like the cell, have an elaborate error (mutation) correcting subroutine written into our software. Here is some mutated code:

O sey kan u sea bi thu dauns Earl Lee lite...

Did your error correction software kick in?

The way way that mutation can seem to appear to cause "new" information has been explained. Since code is physical, we have to ask the question what does the code mean? Has this "new" code already been associated to information?


 



#10 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,381 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 June 2017 - 03:16 PM

Blitz said: "Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."

I agree.
But, it is important to understand that code does not store information. Code represents information by a mental agreement. There is a profound difference between matter and our mental state of information and meraning. Since we can see it, code is made of matter. Informattion is not made of matter. Information is the exclusive domain of intelligence.

In order to know what information code symbols represent, there has to be a mental learning process to associate code to information. An intelligent being "reads" the code I am generating on this computer screen. Remember when we learned to speak, read and write? Information never leaves the mental state!

Evos may not like the fact that code and information are not the same things because they do not wish to accept the existance of anythig non-physical but, how are we to avoid acknowledging that there are no physics to information?
 
 
 



#11 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 June 2017 - 07:24 AM

It was Shannon that defined code and information interchangeably giving the impression that they are one and the same things.

invalid assumption.
computer code (software), and computer hardware are interchangeable too, but they are not the same thing.
software is easily edited, hardware isn't.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users