Evolution without accidents and also no intelligence?

I enjoyed reading your comments.  Rather than try to parse cellular communication's role in regulatory systems, let our focus stay on Shapiro.

Actually, I accidentally found myself reading your quote from Shapiro thinking it was you expressing your views!

I'm sorry, I think Shapiro writes like that for one reason - to be tolerated within the body of biology. He wants to do his research without ruffling too many feathers in his subject.

As I have said, I don't blame Shapiro - it may be the only way to drag biology out of the mess of trying to support the indefensible - however you should realise how weird Shapiro's language is to read.

Try to restate Shapiro's ideas in conventional language, and eschew redefining things.

I gave you a good example of "informational flow". Applied to something practical like posting a message on a message board, doesn't it sound a bit silly, yet I'm sure that Shapiro or one of his friends coined that phrase. Don't you feel uncomfortable that Shapiro (presumably) has tricked you into using such a vague, meaningless phrase?

I can't argue at all that there is a difference between making a copy of information and an agent experiencing life.

For anything to experience something, you are bumping into the Hard Problem. I.e you are assuming the very essence of the problem that sentient beings pose to biology.

Maybe the most fascinating aspect of this, is that it illustrates the iron grip that materialism exerts over the science establishment. People are literally driven into writing things which are vague and confusing, just to escape the charge of being 'woo woo'!

David