Modeling observed biological systems does not by default mean that they can arise without an intelligent agent.
Of course not. The assertion in question was whether or not simple information patterns can, when scaled up, correlate to meta-biological processes, that's all. If you notice, I mention that this correlation does not imply causation, nor was I trying to assert that it did.
It says nothing about cause or origin aside from the fact that there is no precedent established that biological systems can form themselves and arise on their own.
Eh... this is actually an interesting point of open debate among myself and my colleagues. I can assure you that the biological mechanisms that we have modeled in the Software Ecosystem were not intentionally placed by any human being, they are instead what could be called the net affect of the intentions and will of all human innovators within the system.
So on one hand, of course, the complex information system arose from "design", in that, it arose from the actions of human beings, but it was not any form of _intentional_ design or engineering, but more an unintentional offshoot of thousands of designers all jockeying to win a finite number of computer cycles for their particular creations.
Which raises an interesting question, if an intelligent agent designs unintentionally, is it still intelligent design?
Information just does not happen. Increasing chemical complexity violates the 2nd law and is not observed to happen spontaneously within nature without a known intelligent agent behind it.
Interesting assertion. On one hand, I can give you countless examples in the computational/simulation world where purely random processes "increase information and complexity", as there as an entire field dedicated to the practice (Evolutionary Algorithmic Computation). Granted, that's still within the artificial "Created" world of binary computation, so I can see why you might dissent to that example. On the other hand you mention that "Increasing chemical complexity" is not observed to happen within nature without an "intelligent agent" behind it, I assume then that you agree that any life-form should be considered an "intelligent agent", as all biology increases chemical complexity of the immediate environment around it during it's life-cycle. Would you say that's a fair assertion or am I missing something? Thanks MetMom!
Somehow I think that an agent intelligent enough to create a universe and something as complex as life, would not have the human failing of creating something unintentionally.
On the other hand you mention that "Increasing chemical complexity" is not observed to happen within nature without an "intelligent agent" behind it, I assume then that you agree that any life-form should be considered an "intelligent agent", as all biology increases chemical complexity of the immediate environment around it during it's life-cycle. Would you say that's a fair assertion or am I missing something?
Not quite. I was thinking more along the lines of origins- that process up to the point of the first fully functioning, complete, living cell. There's also the fact that life is pretty fragile, and that it's more likely not to survive than it is to survive.
I'm not saying that any individual cell is the intelligent agent, but that there's an intelligent agent outside the system that accounts for that. Whether it's constant upkeep, or occasional tweaking.
The 2nd law is strong enough that deterioration sets in even before the death of the individual in that process called aging. The 2nd law couldn't be a law if it did not apply to all systems within the physical universe, therefore something in biological systems is temporarily overriding it.
[[ If you notice, I mention that this correlation does not imply causation, nor was I trying to assert that it did.]]
I did notice that- was just making sure we’re clear and others who might be following the exchange understand the differences-
[[Interesting assertion. On one hand, I can give you countless examples in the computational/simulation world where purely random processes “increase information and complexity”,]]
But again, this info is all directed by input that is very specific to the programs- introducing noise on the other hand would result in nothign but chaos and an unfunctional program. The only way to avoid this would be to somehow filter out al lthe unwanted noise intelligently- non useful noise, and only keep that which is, or might becoem, useful- .
Bottom line is you still need to act as a sort of metainfo- while hte actions might be soemwhat random, they are still controlled intelligently behind hte scenes- much the same way computer models of supposedly random ‘evolution’ are carefully controlled despite the claism otherwise.
[[ On the other hand you mention that “Increasing chemical complexity” is not observed to happen within nature without an “intelligent agent” behind it, I assume then that you agree that any life-form should be considered an “intelligent agent”, ]]
No- can’t agree with that because it is not the life form’s doing, it is simply hte vessel of the intelligent agent’s metainfo- the intelligent agent’s predesigned complexity.
Here’s a thread on this very issue (Life’s metainfo and heiararchal systems beneath the metainfo)- you might enjoy the discussions- start abotu 1/2 way down with Betty Boops post, and note also AlamoGirl’s contributions- quite and interesting discussion, and akin to you and your fellow worker’s discussions: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts?q=1&;page=551
[[Which raises an interesting question, if an intelligent agent designs unintentionally, is it still intelligent design?]]
No- it’s a happy coincidence- however, that isn’t what happens in life systems, as the metainfo is forward looking, and can be demonstrated by the fact that certain arangements are ‘primed’ as it were to deal with changes- this shows intelligent intention- not unintentional consequences. The metainfo in living systems id designed to work with problems that might occure under environmental stresses that might crop up. And htis is a very important point, because simply piling info on top of info, the way mutations do, you can not arive at this intelligent intentional forsighted preparedness that we see in living systems.
Your models do have a built in preparedness- whether itnentional or not, and if somethign gets added, and it works out, it was eaither intelligently designed to work out properly, or it was unintentionally predesigned to do so without hte programmers understanding what would have happened, how a change woudl affect the whole system, and so on. Again, while yes, programmers can design complexity, it is still a minor complexity compared ot hte actual metainfo designed into livign systems right vrom the very simplest cells, all the way to full creatures.
I’ll think on htis a bitm ore later tonight (early tomorrow a.m) but I think you’ll find soem answers in that thread I linked for you- The whole issue with metainfo is quite fascinating, and a very important part of IC systems- not just in a few examples such as Ecoli, but htroughout the whole species- their whole structures, every single system. Bottom line, predesigned- another bottom line is that chemicals in the natural state are dirty, chemicals in living systems are pure- Nature is incapable of purifying those chemicals, yet somehow, each system has entirely pure chemical structures which are selected for precisely by higher heiararchal systems for species specific functions.
Computer models are fun and fascinating, and as complex as they might be, they don’t compare to living complexity’s predesigned metainfo. If you were to allow a fully random ‘manipulation’ by foreign forces (simulating mutations) on the computer system, the result would not be the nice neat evolutionary changes you now see- there is still soem intelligent direction goign on- there has to be- otherwise you’d have one giant mess of a program as an end result.
As well, before I break for awhile, what you’re talkign abotu are in essence microevolutionary changes- changes that work entirely within the system’s already present ‘species specific’ ifnromaiton- You’re not talkign about the creation of novel, non species specific results that fall outside the species spefific paramters- which would be absolutely necessary for macroevolution of hte system in question.