See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now? This blog article is proof of the existence of God.
| Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks. |
Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy. But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself. All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof. It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.
So how is this message proof of the existence of God?
This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences. It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.
You can do all kinds of things with this message. You can read it on your computer screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are. You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone. You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document. You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.
Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same. My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language. The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.
Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).
Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)
Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.
Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code. Or mating calls of birds. Or the Internet. Or radio or television. Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings. Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.
OK, so what does this have to do with God?
It’s very simple. Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and intent.
Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:
“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind. No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”
Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.
But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. And they cannot create information.
It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.
But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’
DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.
DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”
As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years. I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.
But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from. This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”
You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html
Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone can agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere, too!
Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy. And information can only come from a mind. If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.
Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God. Because information and language always originate in a mind.
In the beginning were words and language.
In the Beginning was Information.
When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):
–“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
–“OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins:
–Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):
http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code
-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:
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 – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Hi There,
I was pondering if subscribing or not, then I read the first lines of this post and I understand that I don’t need to. The whole affair revolves clearly around a tautology (repetition of meaning, using different words to say the same thing twice, Wikipedia).
“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind. No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”
So, since the whole debate about evolution is “It is possible that the coded DNA information evolved from matter by itself?”, your _unproven_ statement simply sets the matter. Is like if I tried to enter this discussion saying:
“DNA code evolved without requiring a mind”, and from that _unproven_ statement I infer that the evolution is real…
With this kind of reasoning, you can convince only the people that already believes that.
Ciao
Danilo
Danilo,
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we KNOW the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore DNA (which we do not know the origin of) is designed.
There is no tautology here whatsoever. Just normal scientific inference.
Perry
Perry,
I’m a new poster and wanted to comment on the above. I don’t see where you and Danilo’s comments aren’t both worth persuing. Danilo’s point certainly seems correct, and therefore a “mind” is the designer. What’s wrong with that?
David
“Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”
Em…DNA
Prove it.
How about you (perry) prove that it did. You cant, that is why.
Hi Perry you are one busy little bee, what exactly do you believe are you a Christian ? I do not have time to read all the emails ? And yes atheist’s are taking a leap of faith when they proclaim there is no intelligent design, a leap of faith almost as large as the Christian who claim’ s that Yahweh is the creator because a book his parents gave him says so. Fact is whether you are capable of understanding it or not is that the universe itself is alive purposeful and conscious through the human body…..in other words you are God or at least part of a large network of information that is becoming more self aware as YOU continue to evolve………………..is this what you are saying ?
see http://www.coffeehousetheology.com for an explanation of what I believe….
Perry, I dont know if there is a god or not, inspite of a life long search. I was reading your arguments with interest untill you said, that your arguments were unassailable. Once man thought that the earth was flat, based on the information that was available.
You say that because DNA is a code it must have come from a mind, therefore there’s a God. But there is so much information at the atomic level that is hardly understood, yet it underpins all matter including DNA. Your argument shall stand in obeyance of this vast store of knowledge.
Bob,
No theory is literally unassailable. Knowledge is ALWAYS subject to revision.
So in that spirit I invite all comers to assail it with the best facts available.
Now we believe the earth is round.
I think most of us are willing to go with that. It’s the most current knowledge available.
I am asking you and all readers to come to the best conclusion you can, based on what we do know.
Perry Marshall
Perry, so now your saying that, because DNA is a code, it must have come from a mind, therefore there’s a God. Is best thinking, based on the information that’s available. Of course that is right, the methodology that is. We no longer have an unassailable argument that there’s a God.
Hello Perry,
I’m still grappling with this.
The universe existed before DNA. Therefore, either DNA arose naturally by some untestable, never observed natural proccess. Or some untestable, never observed supernatural procress / being. We do observe natural processes. We never observe supernatural processes.
Couldn’t I say… “we have 100% of human observation that natural processes can produce some things. But 0% of human observation of supernatural processes or beings producing anything?”
And if I say I have 0% percent observation that natural processes can produce codes, must not I also say I have 0% observation that supernatural processes or beings can? I’ve never observed either to produce codes correct?
Doesn’t Occam’s Razor suggest it is more likely by some unknown natural process, instead of some unknown supernatural process or being?
I have a feeling I have completely over looked something here. Is this where the whole information is immaterial and must have a immaterial source comes in?
But then if DNA is the one example of codes arising naturally, then that means we have never observed nature or God do it right?
Can you shed some light on this for me?
God bless,
JohnM
Yes, the universe existed before DNA.
Yes, it was through some never observed natural processed or through an intelligent being.
I just wrote to another guy:
We examine DNA and we find:
-It is a multi-layered code
-It has redundancy mechanisms
-It has error correction mechanisms
-It repairs itself
-It makes copies of itself
And we ask: what things are we familiar with that share these characteristics?
The closest thing to the pattern in DNA is computer databases and communication protocols like TCP/IP.
And we ask:
Q: “How do TCP/IP and databases get their multi-layered structure?”
Q: “How do TCP/IP and databases get their redundancy features?”
Q: “How did the error correction mechanisms in CD players, DVD players and internet packets originate?”
Q: “When you purchase a product that repairs itself, where does the repair capability come from? How does the repair mechanism come to be?”
Q: “When you have a system that makes copies of itself or parts of itself, how does that mechanism come to have the structure that it has?”
Which is the most logical answer?:
A) “The structure of databases and TCP/IP comes from purely natural processes. They come from highly energetic organic chemistry in rare and highly fortunate sets of conditions. This is especially obvious, considering how incredibly similar databases and TCP/IP are to rocks and snowflakes and sand dunes and tornados.”
Midas, is that a reasonable answer? Does it really correlate with your experience?
Or
B) “The structure of Databases and TCP/IP comes from very smart people, making careful conscious, purposeful decisions. Very deliberate design decisions which involve careful compromises and choices by very smart intelligent beings.”
Does that correlate perhaps a little better with actual experience?
What are are choices here?
1-DNA arose by chance
2-DNA arose by necessity
3-DNA arose by design
1) does NOT satisfy Occam’s razor whatsoever. It’s so improbable as to be laughable. It is also not scientific because it doesn’t appeal to underlying order but disorder and LUCK. Frankly it is not at all worthy of consideration and should be thrown out completely.
2) could be true! but nobody so far can identify a law or process that makes life necessary. This explanation doesn’t yet merit the label of “science.”
3) is the only simple explanation.
Now Christianity has more to say about this. Christianity points to the incarnation, to divine revelation; to miracles and healings, which still do happen today. One can accept these things or not, but #3 is still the most direct answer. The other two answers have no evidence to support them.
Perry
hmm… i quite like his blog… it explains everything i needed ^.^ carry on!
I should say I admire your intestinal fortitude – your willingness to answer honest query.
Could you clear up a couple of points about how you view DNA? I’m not schooled in information theory, but I’ve seen a few times where you talk about information, symbols and a communication going on as essential characteristics.
So who is DNA communicating with? Shouldn’t there be a mind at each end?
Also, as you mentioned, DNA by itself (given some nucleotides floating around) will make copies analogous to salt crystals, so I wonder why we even think of DNA as the ground. Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to say that proteins replicate by making DNA ‘symbols’ and then reading them off later on? I know that tradition has it that proteins flow from DNA, but in truth, it’s the entire system that is important and the lines can be drawn elsewhere.
Finally, “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists.” makes me think that if you can read this sentence: AATGCTAAAGGCCTTATAT, you are a ribosome.
Bill
Bill,
Codons are encoded into Messenger RNA and decoded by Ribosomes.
This is NO different than saying my blog post is encoded into 1’s and 0’s by my computer when I hit the “submit” button, and decoded by your computer when you pull up my web page.
The diagram for that communication channel is at http://evo2.org/dnanotcode.htm. That’s what we’re always referring to when someone says “information theory” – info theory is all about the properties of the components of that diagram. It’s exactly the same diagram for DNA as it is for a computer or a cell phone or a garage door opener.
My observation is very simple: All systems that match this diagram, that we know the origin of, are designed. The most important feature is that an abstract, symbolic relationship exists. For all such systems you can create a table which is not literally, physically there but which is directly implied. In computer systems the table says, “100001 = A” and so on for every letter of the alphabet; In DNA it’s “GGG = Glycine” and so on for every amino acid.
So yes, if you can read AATGCTAAAGGCCTTATAT, you are a ribosome. Rocks don’t read. Snowflakes don’t read. Sand dunes and tornados don’t read. Those things don’t follow instructions and they don’t fit into Shannon’s diagram. RIbosomes follow instructions and they fit the diagram. Therefore by inference we conclude Ribosomes are designed.
Perry
The Author of this website (the christian) must have got stuck on my point and may have been too embarrassed to keep my comment on the site and just deleted it.
I was just stating that DNA could be the very thing that came into existence and did not come from a mind. [Maybe it did come from a mind, but why not entertain the idea, at least for a moment.]
This possibility was not stated in his most succinct argument. It should have been stated at least as an after-thought.
So, looking at the point from one perspective, DNA COULD be the answer; it could be an example of something that came into being without a mind.
I have a very simple argument for how this could be the case, assuming you don’t go back before the so called big-bang. I don’t want to state it here because of time and the fact that HE may delete it again. He may even take the idea as his own after deleting it.
We should really define what ‘mind’ is here. Suffice to say for now, a human-like one. [Maxwell religious, eh?! – they must be ‘idiot-type savants’ these guys! lol! Newton was a pretty cruel man as well. i’ve never really liked any religious person. i’m impressed by Newton, but i would have hated him personally because he was very unforgiving and liked to execute/kill ppl.]
I don’t want to subscribe to all the comments again, there are too many. So, please email me any thoughts: [email protected].
Also remember: things like Gravity, Entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics have not been proven either! They are INFERRED.
Please tell me how gravity is not proven. And you should really change the name of this page to: If you can read this sentence, I can provide you with a inference that points toward God.
Scott,
Welcome back. How did you like Yockey’s book?
Gravity is not proven because we do not know that, as a law, it is uniform everywhere and for all time.
It’s not proven because I know of no a priori principle (YET discovered) that precedes it, from which it can be derived.
I do not doubt the reliability of the gravitational theory at all, however. I just point out that it is inferred.
And yes, I do say many times and places on the site: I did not PROVE God, because science cannot prove it can only infer. To the extent science can prove anything which is inference, it provides 100% inference to the existence of God.
Belief in God is just as reliable, philosophically, as belief in gravity.
Perry
Hello Perry,
Ever since I have run across this site, I have grappled / wrestled with this argument. I want to believe it. Trust me. And I think I do. But I continually probe it as much as possible to make sure it’s true. In reflecting on it, this came to me….
1) Coded information always comes from a mind / intelligence composed of matter.
2) All minds / intelligence, based on 100% of human observation, that we know of are composed of matter. We have not one example of a immaterial mind / intelligence.
3) Therefore the coded information in DNA must have come from a physical mind / intelligence composed of matter.
If you disagree, all you need is one example of a mind / intelligence not composed of matter.
Is this valid?
Or how about this way…
1) All minds, that we know of, are made of matter.
2) Coded information always comes from a minds made of matter.
3) Thereofore the coded information in DNA came from a mind made of matter.
It seems like I remember you addressing this somewhere, but cant seem to find it. Whats you thoughts?
God bless,
JohnM
JohnM,
What you are stating here is not all that different from the law of biogenesis. (It is a proper scientific law by the way, in contrast to the rather unsuccessful theory of abiogenesis.)
Life only comes from life.
Logically speaking we know that life appears in a non-living universe at some point.
So the question is how.
The answer is in the very nature of codes themselves: The genetic code is something we abstract from the observed behavior of DNA. It’s not like there’s a code table etched on the wall of a cell somewhere. The genetic code is immaterial. And it shows choices and priorities.
All such things are immaterial. They are of the same exact nature as what philosophers have meant for thousands of years by the word “mind.” Which is distinct from the word “brain” for a very good and well understood reason. In modern terms you might say mind = “software” and brain = “hardware.”
We have NO evidence that mind, code, or software come from matter and energy alone.
We know that information itself is immaterial, as I’ve been saying.
So the logical conclusion is that its origin is also in immaterial mind.
I think it can be proven from Godel’s incompleteness theorem that the source of the universe is immaterial. Simply because matter is finite and if we consider all matter to be a system then it is contingent on something outside the system. Therefore the thing outside the system is immaterial.
I hope to write about this at length in a future post.
Perry
hi perry.. you did do an appreciable task there, but i have a confusion to it.. this question is regarding your conclusion that every information needs a mind so information had to come from a ‘mind’. Think it this way: Here’s a statement one might put : “Information” itself is a random entity which formed just as randomly as the universe did.. So when a universe forms randomly, information does too. Therefore we can say that information is a product of that randomness and therefore this frees it from any explanations that it must have to come from a mind.. Because it happened randomly and now its just going on.. BUT, if you say that NO , it did come from a mind because we see every information coming from a mind in our systems than you’re kinda putting That “mind” in the system itself. and in this system things also come from something so where did that mind come from (because you linked that “mind” to your own system?
You see, the problem with creationists is that they tend to explain things with examples that make them fall on themselves. for examples they may say that like everything around us comes FROM something therefore everything must have COME FROM SOMETHING. everythin is created BY someone so universe MUST have been CREATED BY SOMEONE. now these Reasonings have a problem.. they forget that these events like a things being created by someone amd things coming from somewhere happens in this system now that the universe has come into being. these are the happenings of the product of the formation of the universe. this did not happen before. when the universe was formed, it was one of its properties that things had to be created by someone now. But if you bring God into the system as He created the universe than you kinda make Him the part of this system and then you have to explain his existence too. you cannnot than runaway saying that he is free from such rules of creation.. because you yourself are giving examples from a system where things are created by someone.
I hope you got my point. Anyhow, i am a believer myself but these kinds of examples piss me off. You can’t go around giving reasons for the existence of God . all reasons fall down at a point. and thats where belief comes in..I think one cannot prove God by reasons but Belief..
Hamza,
Anyone who says that information is a random entity that forms naturally can prove their statement by demonstrating this.
In 5 years I have never net anyone who could.
The conclusion that DNA is designed is exactly that: A conclusion, not a presumption.
Perry
Dear Perry Marshal,
I appreciate your hard work on the material.
Though due to time factor I have not been able to go through all the points as given in your writeup.But as one who wish to learn more, how can one best convince those who thought God does not exist because they read in books written by those who have thesame thought of nonexistence of God?
I requsted for hepful points, if possible beyond the area of scientific proof which can be used to help these people.
From Nigeria.
Yours cincerely,
Paul.
I think the best and shortest argument for God’s existence is: http://evo2.org/prove-god-exists/
I have a few questions. I just watched your 60 minute introduction video and have a questions. Just the one for now.
Would you agree that evolution, random or designed, happens only when it needs to happen? I mean to say, an organism will change, significantly, only when it’s natural habitat changes significantly. Also, Microsoft will significantly improve Windows ( I’m one of those people who think that the basic jist of windows never changed, not since 95 ) only when they get a serious treat to their position on the market.
I’m asking this because even though we can’t really perfectly explain evolutionary process. At least not always, you said it yourself when you discussed the antilope turning into a giraffe, is that really how it happened? But still back to my question, even though the process clearly has mysteries doesn’t the timing say something about it as well?
I would like to point out I’m not a biologist so my question may be stupid or of the point. But it does bug me. OK, there is an intelligent designer, but why does he work only when he is needed. Or does he? That is my question.
Vladimir,
I really don’t know if evolution only happens when “necessary” or forced by the environment. My experience of evolution in the real world is it tends to come from outside pressure. I hypothesize that it is similar in biology.
Perry
Mr. Perry
Well first had no idea this was religion based, however, this was very interesting! I go back and forth questioning, “is it science? Or is it god?”. I find myself wanting to think “Hey, maybe it’s niether.” maybe this is the work of something more unfathomable than a god or a theory of explosive porportions.
Yes, I know there is always that one guy out there that has that “way-out-there” opinion. Before I go on, I am a catholic who turned non denominational who has turned to a person who has stated ” why do I have to go to a building on Sunday and Wednesday to celebrate god?”
Honestly, “if a rose by any other name is still a rose” then a building by any other name is still a building. My house should not be considered any less sanctioned than a church.
A bit off topic but it was a very brief tour on how I think. So about the third party creation.
I can only imagine that people were sitting around one day, thousands of years ago, and asked the same questions we ask today. Problem is we were easily spooked or easily persuaded(believe or die). And that’s sort of the way it was. If I was clever enough to come up with translating stones or a bush that burned by itself or a voice from the sky, maybe I could have been a profit. We believe what those in a higher position in life tell us because we feel them being in a higher position qualifies them to be the ones to tell us what we need to know or how it needs to be. I disagree. I think I am getting long winded here but I don’t know how to use big powerful words to summerise a complete sentence. All I’m asking is why is it one or the other? If neither side has solid proof other than speculation and a few artifacts then there there could be a million reasons why. Correct me if I’m wrong but I have seen no bible illustrate dinosaurs. And the science part is baffling too. Anyone care to explain whatis around our universe or what was around the ball of energy before the big bang? and please don’t tell me I’m not supposed to think that way. (was told that once)
Anyway just an opinion. I mean no disrespect to anyone. It’s all in the name of the biggest question known to man.
Sincerely Rick.
Hello Mr. Perry, I am delighted to hear your explanations that point to our Creator God. I have been following and receiving for the last 10 years a magazine published by the “Institute of Creation Research” (http://www.icr.org/) that explains the Principles of Scientific Creationism through Christian scientists. My question is do you know of their existence and their involvement in the community to educate our children and our churches?.
In His name,
Luis R May
Luis,
I am very familiar with ICR and I do not support their work. They advocate a young earth position which I feel is theologically weak and scientifically non-defensible. In all honesty I am embarassed at some of the things they teach. At some point I hope to write about my objections to their POV. A very good book is “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth” by David Snoke who is a physics professor at U. Pittsburgh.
Perry
You have put together a very compelling argument, however I feel like you made the assumption that god exists is a given. I don’t see any scientific evidence to that conclusion.
Hi,
You stated:
I define Code as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
Please explain how you obtain “agreed upon symbols” without circularly presuming that your defined “transmission model” is already operating in the process of obtaining agreement.
A receiver who abstract a “code” from his or her environment does so into his or her pre-existing internal interpretation – for humans, a semantic reaction unique to each person based on the totality of that person’s experience. Even presuming your model, exercises at general semantics seminars have shown that even when participants agree to the words spoken, they provide a host of varying formulations to explain what those words mean (to them – individually — all different).
Every language act involves what we can describe at a high level of abstraction as individualized mapping relations that vary over time between what’s going on in the person’s head – neurologically and introspectively (supervenience) [your “encoding” and “decoding” “functions”] with sensory input and memory.
The key problem here becomes that we have no direct access to the “introspection” of another person – no direct access to the neurological process either. We can each only compare our own introspection of our memory of what we said to our current introspection of our “decoding” abstraction from our sensory input that we interpret as the linguistic response of another person (assumed – as Turing showed).
Even after we perform what we think to be “understanding” (our semantic reaction to our input presumed to be from another), we can use this only to disambiguate our own set of possibilities – which may differ from the possibilities another cognizes.
Example: Picking out the “third one from the left” depends on how we differentiate figure from background, and one who makes finer distinctions will not pick the same “third one from the left” as the one who makes grosser distinctions. We see this is life regularly in the expression “can’t see the forest for the trees” and it’s converse “can’t see the trees for the forest”. Even more problematic is our “cognitive” figure and background distinction for words described as “concepts by intuition”. Even such simply category words as ‘dog’ or ‘cat’ vary significantly in their application and appreciation among members of our species.
Aside from the fact that you appear to assume that the encode and decode functions operate as reciprocal functions, You appear to have assumed that “minds” exist in some way as independent of the brains they “reside” in. For me “a mind” is what a brain does, but I rarely use the term. Cartesian dualism postulates the existence of a non-material “substance”, which leaves the problem of how non-material and material can interact.
You might find my “causal theory of reference” more precise: http://xenodochy.org/article/mathesis.html
“By assuming the form/substance distinction and identity, we can distinguish between energy and information. Information can be reproduced; energy cannot. Energy may be required to ‘make a copy’, but the energy in the copy is different from the energy in the original, whereas the information in the copy is the same as the information in the original. These notions I take as given.”
Human brain cortex has an organization that processes “information” (cellular activation) in massively parallel form with connections that inhibit surrounding cells. This “columnar” organization provides the ability to “abstract” from one level to another – not altogether unlike digital signal processors that reconstruct square waves, but for amplifying a spatially distributed pattern and picking out a figure from a background. Subsequent levels “identify” perceived composite “object” neurological encodings. See http://xenodochy.org/gs/identity.html – “The Neurological Basis of ‘Identity’ “.
Each brain grows uniquely new connections to record its experience, effectively linking together many levels of sensory and subsequent memory and cognitive experiences into a massively interconnected set of “same or not same” distinctions in an inconsistent and interconnected tree that is continually growing and experiencing pruning (use it or lose it). It ends up as our highly individualized map (not the territory) for our use in navigating our physical, semantic, and symbolic environment (real and virtual “worlds”), a map that tells us what sound to make, where to go, when not to make sounds, what to do, when to not do, etc, for obtaining our immediate and long term desires, goals, etc. in the context of living. Such maps are not what is going on, and they are full of errors and holes. And, if we are “smart”, we are continually revising our map. We each live in our own isolated virtual “reality” (See the “Brains in a vat” discussion in philosophy), as well as recent writing under “Bio-centrism”.
I believe your “proof” fails, because it makes unwarranted assumptions about messages as well as assumes circularly the “existence” of “minds” and “messages”. Nothing you say (that I have read).
The transmission model for message does not account for human communications and interactions, as each person is a microcosm of an individual constructed virtual reality responding to its sensory inputs. It is a judgement and an assumption that “other minds” (persons) “exist”; its a Judgement in every case when we project that another person “understands” us, a judgement based on several levels of unreliable abstraction.
http://xenodochy.org/gs/coa.html – Consciousness of Abstracting
http://xenodochy.org/gs/abstract.html – Abstracting (technical)
I don’t have to presume that my transmission model is in the process of obtaining agreement. I only have to observe that a strand of DNA has been correctly decoded. No complex explanation about human psychology needs to be invoked to show that DNA is a communication system. Most of what you are saying here is highly peripheral to the subject at hand.
My definition is perfectly mechanical and black and white as shown at http://evo2.org/faq
Belief in God cannot be a matter of proof. His existence cannot be proven or disproven, and that is exactly the way he would have wanted it, because it takes no effort at all to believe in what can be shown or proven. Faith would be meaningless if it was based always on just what can be shown or proven.
Context: http://xenodochy.org/philosophy/for.html
I on the other hand subscribe to Paul’s statement in Romans 1: “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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 men are without excuse.”
“He thinks he believes only what he see, but he is much better at believing than at seeing.”
1923 – George Santayana (1863-1952)
Dear Perry,
I admire your analysis. It’s creepy to think how the sperm and the egg give their coded instructions to the embryo which, like a computer, executes these commands to become a fully grown person. But the gift of life as seen in the DNA is temporary and all creatures must die. Is decomposing part of the plan? are we by choosing cremation acting against the creator’s wish?
I think that death and decomposition are part of the plan. I see no problem with cremation.