The Information

Shannon's model for communication is not only a good model for the Mathematical Theory of Communication, but can also be seen as a model for religion itself. My experience with religion is limited to Christianity, specifically Lutheranism; however, in order to keep this relevant and a little less monotonous, I'm going to take on Christianity as a whole, and how it is, I think, changing.

 

Shannon's model spoke of the information source being the person/machine generating the message. In the case of Christianity, I will say the information source is God, Jesus, Holy Spirit... Triune Self.

The transmitter in this model is the encoder of the message.. let's say for religion it would be the individuals who wrote the Bible - the prophets, deciples, etc.

The channel is the way the signal is transmitted: religiously - by the Bible.

The receiver decodes the message from the original signal. In this instance, the receiver would be the religious leaders - pastors, fathers, pope, etc.

And finally, the destination is the person or thing at the other end: us.

With this series of information, the concept seems pretty straight forward, with little room for error (besides the fact that human beings tend to misinterpret and confuse actual meanings of Biblical teachings). But for this case - we're going to pretend that what God means when he spoke the words of the Bible are actually what are being told through this pathway. The problem occurs with the noise source. This noise source as seen as a signal interference, which can actually be considered the incapability of man to understand the Biblical teachings, inaccurate translations, as well as the complete lack of understanding for what the Bible is actually teaching.

For example. The biggest deal in the news these days with the "crazy right-winged Christians" is not only the fact that clearly because I'm a democrat and believe all people were created equal am going to Hell, but also that the Boyscouts CANNOT have gay boys and men involved in their program. Apparently, the Bible talks somewhere about the Boyscouts of America and gay people being an abomination so tisk tsk no can do. Well, I can't tell you this for sure, but I'm pretty positive that the Bible does not say anything about the Boyscouts OR gay people being an abomination to God's earth. Now, before I go on a complete tangent about where Christianity has been going in this country, I would like to request that people stop using these "noise sources" as truth. If we're all sticking to the New Testament here, and I'm pretty sure in this blog we are, since I'm talking about Christianity, all of this hate, maltreatment, judgements, and bigotry (ehem Fox News) should actually be absolete, yes? I mean, my goodness, didn't Jesus feed the poor, heal the sick, disapprove of the rich tax collectors, and actually have all of the basic attributes of a liberal?  

 

What really brought up this analogy of the noise source for me is that as I was watching the news about the boyscouts story, a woman came on the screen and stated "I speak for all Christians in saying that no gay people should be allowed in the boyscouts". I was not only horrified by lack of acknowledgement to the basic human principle of everybody being created equal, but also to the fact that my religion is now being seen as a negative term. Do I even want to tell people I'm a Christian anymore? I don't want to be seen as a crazy lady that wants to picket clean air or stop the poorer individuals in my community from having a place to live.

 

The idea of Christianity seems to be known now as more of an intollerant group of people than what it originally was suppose to be about... Maybe it's good that I'm going into the field of psychology.. a lot of people these days seem to need a good psychiatrist or heavy dose of meds to regain a goodness of heart.

The Google Doctors

I have had my fair share of experiences with an abundance of doctors, both good and bad. The good ones have never let me down *knock on wood* and are above par on my standards. But the bad, ohhhh the bad. My biggest question for this group of lazy, uneducated people: Is Google really necessary for you to run your practice?

The answer to this question should actually be a no-brainer. Why would a doctor use Google to diagnose somebody? Isn't Google's unlimited access to medical facts and fictions the reason why so many people have become hypochondriacs? So - no. Google should not be necessary for a doctor to diagnose and treat a patient. I have had my fair share of experiences of Google Doctors both inside and outside of the examination room. "Why do you think my back hurts?" "I don't know... let's Google your symptoms". If I had known we were just going to "Google" my symptoms I would've done this on my own. But she's just my primary doctor - no big deal. ...

Once we get past the whole, "okay maybe it was just that one time thing" (which it turned out not to be), what happens when we get a specialist who is sick of patients Googling their symptoms and telling him what they think they have. I believe it is just human nature to try and figure out what could be wrong with you, even though WebMD always says you're going to die a horrible violent death.. Anyways. This doctor became a catch-22 for me. He not only yelled at me for looking up what could possibly be wrong, because "how is a doctor suppose to do their job when they have patients coming in and telling him what they have"? but then before I left his office he told me to "Google my diagnosis and do some reading". OKAY. Don't get me wrong, but if so called Google Doctors don't want me on the internet and then tell me to go on the internet I find myself a little bit confused. I understand where the "don't look things up online" comes from. Google gives people a very very diverse range of websites that can be both helpful and extremely harmful. Wikipedia for instance.. not always the best website to go to for factual answers, since every day Joe-blows can write whatever they want on that website and basically say their word is holy. Also, Google Answers.. not the best place to go.. sometimes highly entertaining, but nowhere to look for facts. But then we once again come to WebMD which really is a fine website, if you'd like to be scared out of your mind and then reassured by a doctor that your throat isn't going to fall out of your face after your leg falls off.

So. I say. Let's get rid of the Google Doctors and bring in the good ones. Return some sensible knowledge to the medical community and maybe people won't be half as quick to look up their symptoms on the good old Google.

Focus on the user and all else will follow.

Since this post is discussing if religion was to be influenced by one of the "Ten things we know to be true" on google, the easiest number to pick would be the last: Great just isn’t good enough. However, since that is the policy of most western religions these days, I would like to focus more on what flaws I see in the western religions, specifically my own experience in the Lutheran church/WELS congregation.

Google's first "thing we know to be true" is Focus on the user and all else will follow.

 

Since the beginning, we’ve focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line. Our homepage interface is clear and simple, and pages load instantly. Placement in search results is never sold to anyone, and advertising is not only clearly marked as such, it offers relevant content and is not distracting. And when we build new tools and applications, we believe they should work so well you don’t have to consider how they might have been designed differently.

 

I have mixed feelings about this idea within the context of religion. If religion is to focus solely on the user, then everybody would basically have their own ideas of what religion should be. Which, of course, isn't bad at all. There is a very fine line between where religion is now with this and where it should never go, in my opinion. I feel like every individual has his or her own take on religious practices and what the Bible says; however, this understanding can be taken to do a great deal of harm. Take, for instance, The Westboro Baptist Church. They are undoubtedly the most hated group of people in this country at this moment - using religion as their way to become a hate group. There needs to always be a sense of human dignity that is given to each individual... and for anybody who says that the Bible does not state this respect, maybe you've only read specific parts of the Old Testament. If we actually look throughout history, when religion becomes solely about the user, violence breaks out.

 

However; within the WELS congregation, or specifically the church I attend, there is the opposite problem. Relgion in this instance is not at all about the user; it has nothing to do with who we are as individuals and what we need. My own take on the Bible and Jesus' teachings tends to be quite a bit different than my current pastor's - mostly because I believe gay people have just as many rights as everybody else... and I'm a democrat. But I digress. In my experience, this particular church has become more about money and preaching a political opinion rather than the experience of individualized teachings of the Bible. Afterall, I've always felt that since the Bible was written by man for man, there must be some difference in interpretation... and I also think most religions are the same, just different terms and ways of expressing beliefs... which is also against my current church's doctrine. If this congregation is solely about the user, they would not ex-communicate members for a lack of attending church services.. I would not be receiving condescending letters in the mail asking me if I just "forgot Jesus was my Savior" or if I'm just "too lazy to respect God".

 

An open discussion of religion without this ridiculous sense of "we're right and you're wrong" attitude should, in a perfect world, fix these problems between extremisms. Why can't the Bible be up for indivual interpretation? I don't believe any religion is more right than any other, I just particularly like the teachings of Martin Luther. The true sense of what Luther found was wrong with the Catholic Church has basically resurfaced within the Lutheran Church. There needs to be a return to the balance of the "user" and the doctrine. If not, then I suppose I will just make my appearance at church every so often so I am not ex-communicated and then study what I believe to be the true teachings of the Bible... without taking it out on anybody else. So, what do I think about the context of religion being solely about the user? To each his own.. as long as those particular ideologies do not interfere with another's human rights.

Opinion of the iPad

Sometimes I wonder what I would use an iPad for.

During the last couple of class periods, I have enjoyed using the iPad, but I still see it as mainly a large iPhone... Of course the screen is bigger, making it easier to read e-mails as well as type, but I've never actually had the desire to purchase an iPad. I'm perfectly content with my iPhone, iPod, and laptop. Who needs one more thing to carry around? I can see it being useful for schools... since having all of your text books and documents at one touch is pretty impressive, but I'm still attached to books and the "old-fashioned" way of writing notes in a notebook. I think it's the physicality of being able to hold a book and write notes. Plus, typing is mindless to me. I think when I hand-write, I pay more attention to what is being said by the professor or what I am reading.

For the "techy" I can see the appeal. I must admit, the iPad is cool; it's fun to use and personalize, and easy to carry around. The design asthetics are wonderful, and for any Apple fan it's most likely a must have. If one can afford it and is interested, why not purchase one? I, on the other hand, tend to be one of the cheapest people I know; spending money kills me. I scoff at a t-shirt marked down to $5.. who needs to spend that much on a simple t-shirt? So, spending $300 on a piece of technology I don't even consider necessary is a "no can do" situation for me. Most of my technology I have received as a gift or out of necessity for college. I had to put my foot down for Christmas though when my father said he was thinking of buying us all iPads... nobody needs to spend $300 to make me happy - I'd rather just have pfeffernusse cookies.

I wonder if the need for an iPad or desire to own one deals with both, of course, the interest and fascination with the newest technology, but also with income. I know Steve Jobs wanted Apple products to be for the everyday man, but I can tell you, the "everyday man" cannot afford Apple products... or at least the newest ones. This country is built off of branding and consumers, but I wonder if the middle and lower classes are getting left behind - especially in technology. We all know much of the upper class, or more specifically, conservatives in general, do not really understand the plight of a middle and lower class family - so maybe the disconnecct in consumerism is coming from a gap in social economic status. I can honestly say, I do not know many middle and lower clas people who own iPads.

The iPad: Something Fresh and New

Steve Jobs has spunk.

His invention of the iPad is mind boggling to me. I never understood the hype behind new technology; I was never one to stand outside in a line for a million hours just to get the latest gadget. But the more I read about Steve Jobs, I get it. I still don't understand why someone would stand outside in the middle of the night, but I do finally get the excitement.

In terms of the iPad: his design is impeccable. It's simplistic and genuine, just as he wanted and designed with the iPhone. In terms of artistic expression, the simpler the better. Anybody who takes an advanced art class or is an artist will tell you, the simpler the better. Keep simplifying. When this process is occurring, the ideas become clearer, the point you want to make to the viewer is easier to understand. People get it. This is was Steve Jobs has done with the iPad. People understood it. The fact that an "illiterate six year old" could pick up the iPad and use it even though he's never seen this sense of technology before captures the spirit of what Jobs was creating. The rounded edges make the instrument friendlier to the viewer - nobody wants to pick up a boxy piece of technology - rounded edges seem more huggable. I've always had a great draw to the color of the iPad as well (iPhone also); the color is not ivory, but it's not quite white. It really is perfect. The logo on the back of the iPad is also striking. Simple, clean, and tells the consumer exactly where the product came from. Jobs is very good at that - branding. There is no possible way for a consumer to walk in to an electronic store and get confused over whether the product is from Apple or not. The design is thin, easy to carry and transport from place to place and also extremely easy to use as well as personalize.

We have to give it up to Steve Jobs. He really has revolutionized technology, branded it extremely well and has created a company that is always ahead of the competition. By this point in Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs, if you are not a fan, you will never be. I almost feel like I should now go out and buy an iPad, or to be hip, the iPad Mini.



{Winston especially enjoyed this chapter about the iPad}

Technology of Medicine...

I figured that since I've been sick for about a week, a blog post about medicine would be fitting. I've also spent a remarkable amount of time in both hospitals and doctor's offices over the past five years - so again, fitting. As of the last year, once a month I've been heading over to the ever so wonderful Theda Clark Hospital to get hooked up to a machine that pumps the ever so wonderful medicine, Remicade (aka Inflixamab), into my already very unstable bloodstream. Most people think this sounds terrible, but hey, I actually stand up straight and walk because of it, so bring on the medication!

 

Anyways. As I was thinking about how I couldn't receive my infusion today because of the wonderful flu/cold/whatever I may have at the moment (you need a stable immune system for this stuff) it dawned on me... I'm hooked up monthly to a whole lot of technology. What did people do before a machine literally pumped the IV fluids into the body?? Now, Remicade is an oldie but a goodie (oldie in terms of medicine at least). It was invented around 1998, so this technology has clearly been around longer than that.The specific model I am lucky enough to be hooked up to though is the DRE Avanti M3 Infusion Pump, copyright of 2010. I know this doesn't mean a lot to many of you, but this handy machine allows my nurses to set the pace rate for the infusion at different time incraments, alarm included. For the patients and nurses alike, this is wonderful. Every 15 minutes a nurse comes to my room and raises the rate (for the first hour), second hour I get bumped up every 30 minutes. There's no stress involved for anybody and no increase of pressure or any possible irritation. This lovely machine also keeps air bubbles out of the IV line and keeps me tangle free. :)   I know many people who couldn't imagine their lives without Remicade, but I also couldn't survive without this machine (or any of the like). Technology lets us (both patients and nurses/doctors) administer medications, develop new medications, as well as reduce the stress of having medical procedures done.

"Mommon issai no kyo"...

The fact that Steve Jobs studied Zen Buddhism and, more specifically, the works of Shunryu Suzuki Roshi is not surprising to me at all. From the early pages of Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs, there is a clear desire for Jobs to know where he fits within the universe. Jobs has an overwhelming need to know who his birth parents are, even though he was adopted as an infant and never knew them. Just out of the pure fact that he heard his birth parents graduated from college gave him enough line to hold onto - maybe one day, if he was to meet his biological father and mother, he would be able to know and understand his true inner-self.

This "oneness" is what Jobs had been searching for since he began to realize he was smarter than his adoptive parents. He was lost in his own brilliance, and although he only confided in a select few about this lack of connectedness, he needed to express his desires for a place in this world, just as we all do. From Jobs' studies of Zen Buddhism, he was able to gain control over his environment; he learned to have a calmness and quietness, which proved to be a great advantage to Jobs. Jobs gained confidence in who he was through Zen Buddhism. Suzuki teaches of having value: each individual has value - their own value, which is none-other than their own. This value is then a part of the universe. If a lost child, adolescent, or adult in Jobs' case was to hear that no matter who they are or where they come from, they have value, that is sure to give oneself confidence. Jobs studied immensly under Suzuki's apprentice and even though Jobs left this relationship for his career advantages, under the guidance of this teacher, he remained friends with Kobun. Jobs had begun searching for englightenment throughout his life. Even though his found enlightenment may have not manifested itself in the normative values of a monk, Jobs took his newly found self into his life and embraced it fully. Through this strength and confidence in who he now was, Jobs was able to push people in directions they may or may not have gone originally. This made him into the master-mind or arrogant (as some individuals began to know him as) man that ran his ideas into a multi-million dollar company.

Zen Buddhism made Jobs into the man that he we all came to know. His brilliance made his designs, but his understanding of his self-worth and importance allowed his brilliance to come to the forefront.