I am sorry, but i am home with my ten-day old baby and can only write when time allows. I shall put baby in a drawer and devote myself to you!
Negative entropy, DNA based reproduction/evolution, and biological intelligence apply to lifeforms, and do not apply to energy.
Entropy is not a thing - it has no existence independent of the energy that charcterises it. Entropy is just a pattern of energy flow, nothing more. It is something that energy does - just as vortexes form in water/air, entropy forms in energy. Life, as defined as a negative entropy is therefore just the same old energy doing its thing. We might call it Life, and try to distinguish from 'positive' entropic patterns, but really it is the same old stuff. Life is entirely continuous with its energetic surroundings, and obeys the same laws as the energy around it. Energy is not trasnformed by negative entropy, and matter is not transformed when it becomes life. To see that one evolves and not the other is therefore an entirely irrational position.
When you talk about DNA based reproduction and biological intelligence not applying to energy, I hardly know whether to take you seriously I'm afraid. Intelligence cannot be perceived 'in itself'. We merely observe patterns in nature and designate them as intelligent. What does and sdoesn't get designated is entirely arbitrary. If I believed that the universe as suffused with nous
, i would view the rattling of the shingle on the beach as intelligence. If I disn't believe that, then the rattling beach wouldn't be intelligent. Yes DNA replicates, but is merely the transformation from some compounds into others. It is no different in principle from the 'spontaneous' transformation of atomic oxygen/hydrogen into water.
In comparison, your thin sceptial doubt - based soley on chopping the logic of definitions is measely and wicked.
Mark ,I have said to you before that you are no philosopher. You seem impatient with all this ponderous conceptual analysis and seem to want to just get on with things. You are quite happy to accept the intellectual mores of our time, however incoherent, and seem quite blind to the philosophical complexities. Your understanding of science is incredibly naive, I'm afraid, and you seeem to have little insight into the nature of scientific knowledge as well as its epistemological limitations .
You are, in other words, a believer. You hold no truck with scepticism - it irritates you and you want to hurry on without it detaining you any longer. Your scientism is religious in its fervour, and you do not realise that the Christianity you deplore was overthrown by the exact same sceptical arguments that frustrate you.
The chopping up of definitions is the best way out of illusion. It is the practise of recognising that reality does not easily fit into the concepts we impose upon it. You are less interested in truth than on getting on with things. You are an intelligent and irascible man of action - your personality is like a Marx or a Rousseau which is why you call me weasely and wicked. But really, I'm neither of those things - the argument I'm laying out here is good from the philosophical perspective.
I'm sure you'll take this as an insult, but its not meant as one. Men like you are great and trasnform the world- but you'll just get frustrated of you keep hanging out with the philosophically minded. You always seem to be in some spat or other - the amount of frustration you must encounter..? On other blogs, where people are more purposive but less critical you'll probably be regharded as some sort of sage. But here you just seem to me mired in illusion! The philosopher wants out of this - but you don't seem to care!
Best wishes, Nikolai