I'd say any putative "system" formed out of blind, random causes is unrealizable from the get-go — either in the mind, in the world, or in the laboratory. To say a "system" can be the product of dumb, blind luck strikes me as kind of silly — even under the conditions of the "eternal universe model," which postulates infinite time.
The machine model (or machine metaphor) has found its way from physics into theoretical biology in recent times. Indeed, Alberto Riva's intriguing Abstract is based on language of the machine — e.g., "cellular machinery" that "process information."
The machine metaphor sheds great light on certain biological/physical problems, but only up to a point. After that, it begins to obscure some very important facts about machines that some methodological naturalists deem irrelevant to their interests.
In particular, there are two vital, indispensable universal facts about machines that the scientific "machine metaphor," as applied to theoretical biology, totally omits/ignores, despite the fact that cells are biological existents — they are living systems.
(1) As a user of dozens of machines every day, I must report that not once have I detected any sign of Life in any one of them. They're all pretty inert till used.
(2) I use them because they're awfully good at extending my actions; they also happen to be purpose-built in support of my particular purpose: If I need transportation, I use a car. If I need to dry my hair, I use a blow dryer. If I want to plink targets at the range, I use a pistol. Etc. They were all designed to facilitate the purpose for which they were built. But not only did they not build themselves, neither can they autonomously execute their specified purpose themselves.
It seems to me for the machine model of cellular activity to be really apt, it would reflect the subjectivity of cells to the considerations outlined in (1) and (2).
If we do that, we might recognize that machines are subordinate to their users. If that is the case, in what relation of subordination does a living cell subsist?
Possible clue — to higher-order intelligence?
It seems theoretical biology in its present state finds such speculations totally irrelevant to the conduct of the biological sciences.
Anyhoot, thanks so much, Heatlander, for your splendid essay/post! (Sorry it took me so long to get back to you....)
Indeed, even closed loop control systems and/or robots can only respond according to the parameters or rules of their programming. They are not alive. Qualia (things which can only be experienced but not conveyed such as love, hate, pain and pleasure) - are beyond programming.