>>As I see it, with a purely naturalistic process, you have no means of
preserving
>>"progress" (in the sense of increasing complexity).
>Why not ?
Because whatever chance creates, chance destroys. Try getting Howard's
perfume back into the bottle by chance.
>Bill: If we assume that the human brain is more complex than an
expanding cloud
>of hydrogen gas, then what we see is a very real and substantial
increase
>in complexity, not an artifact (IMHO).
>
>But is that assumption correct ?
Maybe not; have you ever had a conversation with hydrogen? :-)
And even if it is, what relevance
>does it have ? Nature can create complexity as it does all the time.
I know, and, as you know, it's the information content which counts.
>Outside to what ? An outside force can still give a vector but as
>Kevin and others have shown a random walk process with a lower limit
>will give the appearance of increase in complexity.
There you go. Your "lower limit" is an outside force preventing chance
from destroying what chance created.
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]