>>As I see it, with a purely naturalistic process, you have no means of
>>"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
>of hydrogen gas, then what we see is a very real and substantial
>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.
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]