Rev Jimbob says:

“Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”
Em…DNA

JohnM says:

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

Scott says:

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.

hamza says:

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..

Vladimir says:

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.

Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. says:

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)