Communication: Guest Blog by Richard Morgan

Most theories of communication these days consider the word uniquely in the sense of transmitting information.

Now, in all forms of animal and human communication there is the will or the desire on the part of the emitter to modify the behaviour, ideas, thoughts and attitudes of the receiver. There are no exceptions.

The language can be verbal, visual, corporal, sonorous…whatever. There is no communication without a will / desire to communicate.

Never. Anywhere.


DNA says “Make proteins, and don’t forget to clean up after you.” (More or less.)


Who does it tell?


Well, DNA’s little helper, mRNA, gallops off into the cytoplasm to pass on the information to ribosomes. There, tRNA gets busy making proteins. But because it is over-enthusiastic,or just plain dumb, it continues to do so until it encounters a STOP sign – a codon.


Now why is this communication going on? Is the DNA commanding? Is RNA saying, “Please give me something to do?”


One would never claim that heat is saying to an ice-cube – “I’ve decided to turn you into water.” We just take as axiomatic certain basic laws of physics.


But no form of communication, either in the Shannon sense or the original sense, happens because it is obeying laws of physics.


Inert matter just sits around minding its own business until physical laws act on it, disturbing its eternal siesta. Inert matter just wants to go on an all-expenses paid, eternal, one-way entropy trip.


Why can’t DNA just lie back and enjoy the show like all the other molecules?


The cell can’t let its DNA can’t do that. It’s got a message, a bunch of exciting information, which it must do something with. That something is called LIFE. And guess what – since the first little DNA show got its act together, it hasn’t stopped making life. Sometimes in fits and starts, but neither meteorites, ice ages or Walmart have ever been able to stop the process.


Communication of information points to a will to communicate.
Communicate : common: – originally the sense of this word means “as one” or “becoming as one”. This sense is retained in the sacrament of communion.


There is no avoiding teleology. Alice in Wonderland found a little bottle with the label “Drink me.” Somebody put that label there, but we are never told who. Nobody would imagine that it just appeared out of nowhere. We know that it was communicating information.


Why does DNA want to do Life?


The question – WHO wants DNA to do life is totally justified. There is communication, therefore there is a will.


I am offering a prize of a year’s supply of coffee to anybody who can give me an example of communication taking place in the absence of any will or desire. I sense my coffee is safe.


Richard Morgan
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here –

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here –

7 Responses

  1. I could take this further, so I will. All emitted messages are insructions. The information in DNA is a coded message.
    Message – instructions – the first part of communication.
    That is true if I just say “Hi” to you. I am instructing you to respond. Whether you say “Hi” back to me or just ignore me – you ARE responding, that is, you are sending a message back to me. You can not fail to respond to my instructions : “Look – I’m and I want to enter into contact with you. I’m probably seeking friendly contact. If I’m pointing a gun at you, that will add information and modify the message. Whatever.
    We can suppose that DNA only communicates its messages when it has an audience. Enter RNA on a free ticket.
    I could go on. There is no way of avoiding the fact that WILLED COMMUNICATION is taking place. And to those who would say, “Nonsense. That’s just what DNA does,” I would say, “Go and have another coffee and come back with your proof, or at least an expanatory theory.” Unless you are too blindly attached to the “just-of-the-gaps” argument. In which case you shold be drinking less coffee.

  2. Sorry about all the typos. I still haven’t learned how to correct my text once I have clicked the irreversible click.

  3. God Chaser says:

    Great Article Mr. Morgan

    Can you elaborate more on your statement:

    “But no form of communication, either in the Shannon sense or the original sense, happens because it is obeying laws of physics”

  4. Please forgive me, but I can’t see what needs elaboration in that sentence. Please tell me what you feel needs further explanation and I will try to help out.

  5. God Chaser says:

    “I am offering a prize of a year’s supply of coffee to anybody who can give me an example of communication taking place in the absence of any will or desire. I sense my coffee is safe”

    OK, when my wife tells me she has a headache, she has no desire, or will to follow through with my request!

    I like Colombian Dark roast!
    : )

  6. kalimsaki says:

    Said Nursi proved the existence of God in his books (Risalei Nur collection) (23 th flash)

    I want to share these sentences

    Second Impossibility
    Your being resembles a thousand-domed wondrous palace in which the stones stand together in suspension and without support. Indeed, your being is a thousand times more wonderful than such a palace, for the palace of your being is being renewed continuously in perfect order. Leaving aside your truly wonderful spirit, heart and other subtle faculties, each member of your body resembles a single-domed part of the palace. Like the stones of a dome, the particles stand together in perfect balance and order demonstrating the eye and the tongue, for example, each to be a wondrous building, extraordinary work of art, and miracle of power.
    If these particles were not each officials dependent on the command of the master architect of the universe, then each particle would have to be both absolutely dominant over all the other particles in the body and absolutely subordinate to each of them; and both equal to each and, with regard to its dominant position, opposed; and both the origin and source of most of the attributes that pertain only to the Necessarily Existent One, and extremely restricted; and both in absolute form, and in the form of a perfectly ordered individual artefact that could only, through the mystery of unity, be the work of the Single One of Unity.
    Anyone with even a particle of consciousness would understand what an obvious impossibility this is; to attribute such an artefact to those particles.

Leave a Reply (Check to see if the EV2 chatbot can answer your question)

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *