SETI and ID
dkomo
asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
process of nature.
Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
by Intelligent Design theory?
Gary Bohn
news:k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com:
They're looking for the theme from Star Wars.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority
of the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Bobby D. Bryant
> This is probably an incredibly obvious question, but I've never seen it
> asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
> patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
> scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
> signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
> out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
> process of nature.
I'll also be eager to hear the part about what patterns they are searching
for. Re the latter part of your question, IMO once they do find an
'interesting' pattern is when the fun will begin. I think we (and the
SETI people themselves, as scientists) will have good reasons to be just
as critical/skeptical as we are of the ID claims we're always hearing.
How _do_ you distinguish intelligent design from an unknown cause?
[Frankly, I don't think there is any way to do that, other than by
detecting the designer in action, or at least by detecting the designer
and establishing "probable cause" that that designer is the agent behind
the observed phenomenon.]
And to back up a step, aliens almost certainly won't think the way we do,
and thus may very well pick a different 'obvious' message than we do. We
may have trouble _recognizing_ the message, let alone convincing ourselves
that it comes from an intelligent source.
In general I'm not very optimistic. Unintentional signals may be hard to
distinguish from noise. Intentional signals may be easier to spot, but
it's not clear why anyone would generate a special signal strong enough to
be receieved at great distances for enough millennia or billennia for us
to hit the correct technological threshold while they're still
broadcasting.
> Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
> by Intelligent Design theory?
Depends on what you mean by 'could'. In view of their lack of methods
that can actually be applied, no. In view of their total lack of interest
in actually detecting design (as opposed to convincing the Paganos and
Goodrichs of the world that they have), no.
If they were _really_ interested in detecting 'intelligent design', yes,
that's exactly the kind of thing they would be thinking about, and they
would be extremely eager to be the first people to publish an analysis of
every suspected signal, as their landmark demonstration of the power of
their field.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
dkomo
> dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com:
>
>
>>This is probably an incredibly obvious question, but I've never seen
>>it asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact
>>signal patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
>>is scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that
>>the signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized)
>>somewhere out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and
>>presently unknown process of nature.
>>
>>Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
>>by Intelligent Design theory?
>>
>>
>> --dk...@cris.com
>>
>>
>
>
> They're looking for the theme from Star Wars.
>
>
Or maybe that catchy little tune from Close Encounters of the Third
Kind. Or possibly even that blast on the cosmic tuba from Contact.
Bill Thompson
news:k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com...
http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/OSSearch.html
part 2: Can the creation emulate the creator?
Ivar Ylvisaker
Severian
wrote:
The SETI@Home project is looking for narrow-band signals at 1420Mhz
that recur from the same direction, rather than for any particular
pattern within the signal.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu
--
Sev
stew dean
> asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
> patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
> scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
> signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
> out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
> process of nature.
SETI are looking for a stable and narrow signal first and foremost.
Then when a signal is found then the next job is to determine if it's
intelligent, and that will essential involve trying see if the signal
is carrying a message.
There is no absolute system for determining if the signal is
artificial aside from the fact it carries information that can be
shown to be from a non natural source. Signs of life will include
prime number groups, mathematical series etc. A simple pulse would not
be enough most would say.
> Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
> by Intelligent Design theory?
You first have to determine where you are looking for your signal. If
it's in DNA then you have to understand how natural sources can
produce your signal and how to determine how to find signal in the
DNA.
The simple answer is actualy yes, you can look for ID signals in DNA
and, in theory, an intelligent designer could hide messages in
relatively stable areas of junk DNA.
There was an article in last weeks New Scientist about the subject by
one of the people involved with Seti (can't find it on the web). It
does sound like science fiction but if any intelligent designer was
involved with use that is wehre they could leave their signature.
But, as I said, signs of intelligence would need to be flagged with
some kind of mathematical clear signal. Signal usualy stands out very
clearly from noise.
Stew Dean
Frank J
But it can't be "Johnny B. Goode" because someone will argue that
that's the song that we "sent out there."
>
>
> --dk...@cris.com
Lieutenant Kizhe Katson
> dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com>...
> > This is probably an incredibly obvious question, but I've never seen it
> > asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
> > patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
> > scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
> > signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
> > out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
> > process of nature.
>
> SETI are looking for a stable and narrow signal first and foremost.
> Then when a signal is found then the next job is to determine if it's
> intelligent, and that will essential involve trying see if the signal
> is carrying a message.
>
> There is no absolute system for determining if the signal is
> artificial aside from the fact it carries information that can be
> shown to be from a non natural source. Signs of life will include
> prime number groups, mathematical series etc. A simple pulse would not
> be enough most would say.
Indeed. I recall (somewhat apocryphally) that when the first pulsar
was detected there was some speculation that this repeating signal
came from aliens. But in short order, more such signals were
discovered, and traced to rapidly rotating neutron stars. Natural
oscillators aren't too hard to find.
[rest snipped]
-- Kizhe
Ferrous Patella
Chez Watt winner from 03SEP02:
"SETI is based on the simple assumption that nature operates
elsewhere the same way it does here. ID is based on the assumption
that nature doesn't even work here."
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits
John Bode
> asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
> patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
> scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
> signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
> out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
> process of nature.
>
Best place to find out is here:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/index.html
One of the linked papers that discusses the signal characteristics:
http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/alien_signal.html
Here are the basic criteria for a candidate signal:
1. The signal will be in the neighborhood of 1420 MHz, the spectral
frequency of hydrogen. Assumed because hydrogen is the most abundant
element in the universe, and an intelligent being might take advantage
of that.
2. The signal will be narrowband instead of broadband. A narrowband
signal will be stronger than a broadband signal for any given amount
of energy. Also, all known natural phenomena generate broadband
signals, so a narrowband signal is almost guaranteed to be
artificially generated.
3. The signal will fade in and out along a Gaussian curve, over the
course of 12 seconds. This is the amount of time it takes for the
Aricebo telescope to move across a patch of sky. This will imply that
the signal is truly extraterrestrial in origin, as opposed to an
Earthbound source.
Signals marked as viable candidates are put through more sophisticated
analysis, but that's not done by the screensaver.
> Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
> by Intelligent Design theory?
>
Probably not, since it proceeds from a number of ad hoc assumptions
about what an artificial signal should look like.
>
> --dk...@cris.com
Thomas H. Faller
1. Commercials, especially beer commercials.
2. Not by the ones I've seen...
Tom Faller
Craig Franck
The pattern generalizes to a non-natural process significant in character.
An artifact that could not be generated by any known natural process that
had the function of a signifier is similar in pattern to a narrow-band signal
at the frequency of hydrogen. Strong significance would favor the
interpretation of an artifact over a simply unknown natural process
Clearly, totally-functional DNA with robust error correction would be an
example of this. God did not do creationists any favors by making DNA
look organic in nature.
The sun and moon being the same apparent diameter is significant, but
there would have to be some code embedded in eclipse patterns.
Astrologers never found one, but it is interesting to note that some Greek
(the name escapes me) thought that the moon was a burnt out sun since
they were the same size and it would be helpful to have a stronger light
source at night.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
AC
I also recall that the first pulsars discovered raised, very briefly, the
spectre of LGMs. This is why detecting design is f**king hard some times.
When an object is reasonably common-place, like a building foundation or the
remnants of a fortification, they are close enough to our experience that
they can be easily recognized. Another example I like to use is ancient
hominid stone tools. I could walk through a field scattered with H. habilis
tools, and admire the angular rocks without ever recognizing them as worked
by the hands of an intelligent being. There doesn't seem to be any single
magical mathematical formula for determining design. Either its reasonably
easy to spot, or you have to start looking very close.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
Bobby D. Bryant
> The sun and moon being the same apparent diameter is significant, but
> there would have to be some code embedded in eclipse patterns.
> Astrologers never found one, but it is interesting to note that some
> Greek (the name escapes me) thought that the moon was a burnt out sun
> since they were the same size and it would be helpful to have a stronger
> light source at night.
The moon would have been a pretty crummy solution to that problem, given
that it's not always around at night.
Ashley Moore
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com>...
[snip]
> Indeed. I recall (somewhat apocryphally) that when the first pulsar
> was detected there was some speculation that this repeating signal
> came from aliens. But in short order, more such signals were
> discovered, and traced to rapidly rotating neutron stars. Natural
> oscillators aren't too hard to find.
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> -- Kizhe
This is true. The first pulsar was called LGM-1 with LGM standing for
Little Green Men, in honour of the speculaion about the signal's
intelligent origin.
Eros
> news:k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com by dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net>:
>
> > This is probably an incredibly obvious question, but I've never seen it
> > asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
> > patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
> > scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
> > signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
> > out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
> > process of nature.
> >
> > Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
> > by Intelligent Design theory?
> >
> >
> > --dk...@cris.com
> >
> Chez Watt winner from 03SEP02:
> "SETI is based on the simple assumption that nature operates
> elsewhere the same way it does here. ID is based on the assumption
> that nature doesn't even work here."
I don't know why that was a "Chez Watt", Ferrous. I think it's a very
clever and apt comparison.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The claim that the universe, the earth, and life were made by an
undetectable Creator using supernatural powers falls outside of
science. It makes no predictions that can be tested. It cannot be
negated by science. If it had any real possibility of negation, it
would lose many of the advantages that it offers to its adherents. It
is mythology serving to buttress a religion." -- (Professor Robert
Shapiro, "Origins: A skeptic's guide to the creation of life on earth"
pp. 262-263)
AC
Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message news:<Xns95497A22DB50B...@199.45.49.11>...
>> news:k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com by dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net>:
>>
>> > This is probably an incredibly obvious question, but I've never seen it
>> > asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
>> > patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
>> > scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
>> > signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
>> > out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
>> > process of nature.
>> >
>> > Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
>> > by Intelligent Design theory?
>> >
>> >
>> > --dk...@cris.com
>> >
>> Chez Watt winner from 03SEP02:
>> "SETI is based on the simple assumption that nature operates
>> elsewhere the same way it does here. ID is based on the assumption
>> that nature doesn't even work here."
>
> I don't know why that was a "Chez Watt", Ferrous. I think it's a very
> clever and apt comparison.
And is thus eminently qualified as a Chez Watt, which also covers such
delightful little witticisms.
dkomo
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:17:21 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>
>
>>This is probably an incredibly obvious question, but I've never seen it
>>asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
>>patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
>>scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
>>signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
>>out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
>>process of nature.
>
>
> I'll also be eager to hear the part about what patterns they are searching
> for. Re the latter part of your question, IMO once they do find an
> 'interesting' pattern is when the fun will begin.
After reading the posts in the thread and some of the material on the
SETI@home web site, I concluded I didn't find what I was looking for. I
was hoping that SETI had developed some general set of criteria that
would identify an "intelligent" signal. And I was wondering if those
criteria could be applied toward characterizing intelligent design in
other areas.
Instead what they have developed is a set of digital signal processing
filters intended to filter out signals of terrestrial origin, or signals
produced by natural processes in space. If any signal makes it through
those filters, here's what happens next:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/about_seti/about_seti_at_home_5.html
"Any signals that qualify will be sent back to the Berkeley SETI@home
team for further analysis. The SETI@home team maintains a large database
of known radio-frequency interference (RFI) sources. This database is
constantly updated. At this point 99.9999% of all the signals that your
screen saver detects will be thrown out as RFI. Test signals are also
removed at this point. "
There still is no discussion of how a signal passing through all further
filters discussed on the above page can be characterized as
"intelligent," let alone how any message within the signal could be
decoded.
In my opinion the methods SETI is using for analyzing radio signals are
too specialized to be applied in other areas -- for example, scanning
DNA for "hidden messages" or proving that it is a result of intelligent
design.
Bobby D. Bryant
> There still is no discussion of how a signal passing through all further
> filters discussed on the above page can be characterized as
> "intelligent,"
Frankly I don't think predefining a general test is even _possible_.
We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether the pros
or the cons make the most convincing argument.
> let alone how any message within the signal could be decoded.
For general messages, this is a doozie too. Unknown message in an unknown
language using an unknown representation scheme. Where to start, without
a Rosetta stone?
Glenn
causes and terrestrial origin yet.
But there is "discussion", if you had made any effort to look.
http://www.seti.org/about_us/voices/doyle.php
"What if we get an extraterrestrial signal that's not 9th order but 20th
order in complexity," theorizes Doyle. "Right away, we know their
communication ability exceeds ours by about as much as ours exceeds
ground squirrels. In other words, we're going to know where we stand
right away. Even an extraterrestrial transmission would have to obey the
rules of information theory."
Glenn
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>
> > There still is no discussion of how a signal passing through all
further
> > filters discussed on the above page can be characterized as
> > "intelligent,"
>
> Frankly I don't think predefining a general test is even _possible_.
As possible as anything else.
>
> We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether the
pros
> or the cons make the most convincing argument.
>
Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate signal,
assuming they ever get one.
>
> > let alone how any message within the signal could be decoded.
>
> For general messages, this is a doozie too. Unknown message in an
unknown
> language using an unknown representation scheme. Where to start,
without
> a Rosetta stone?
>
The "Shannon" stone.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>> We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether the
>> pros or the cons make the most convincing argument.
>
> Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate signal,
> assuming they ever get one.
Don't random 'signals' have more complexity than intelligent messages? If
we post some bit strings, can you reliably tell us which are messages and
which are noise? Which have intelligent causes and which have other
causes?
Glenn
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:49:32 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>
> >> We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether
the
> >> pros or the cons make the most convincing argument.
> >
> > Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate
signal,
> > assuming they ever get one.
>
> Don't random 'signals' have more complexity than intelligent messages?
For a certain definition of "complexity", and "information", I suppose.
What is this bullshit question? Either agree or disagree with SETI. I'm
not an expert.
> If
> we post some bit strings, can you reliably tell us which are messages
and
> which are noise? Which have intelligent causes and which have other
> causes?
>
All posted bit strings would have intelligent causes. That's a safe bet
since SETI has not located ET yet.
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>>
>> > There still is no discussion of how a signal passing through all
>further
>> > filters discussed on the above page can be characterized as
>> > "intelligent,"
>>
>> Frankly I don't think predefining a general test is even _possible_.
>
>As possible as anything else.
>>
>> We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether the
>pros
>> or the cons make the most convincing argument.
>>
>Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate signal,
>assuming they ever get one.
So you have confidence that SETI will accurately determine they have
found an intelligent signal.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.20....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:49:32 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>>
>> >> We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether the
>> >> pros or the cons make the most convincing argument.
>> >
>> > Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate
>> > signal, assuming they ever get one.
>>
>> Don't random 'signals' have more complexity than intelligent messages?
>
> For a certain definition of "complexity", and "information", I suppose.
> What is this bullshit question? Either agree or disagree with SETI. I'm
> not an expert.
So, when you called my claim 'bull', you were just jerking a knee rather
than expressing an opinion you could even _try_ to support?
>> If we post some bit strings, can you reliably tell us which are
>> messages and which are noise? Which have intelligent causes and which
>> have other causes?
>
> All posted bit strings would have intelligent causes. That's a safe bet
> since SETI has not located ET yet.
Very good! But I notice that you didn't determine any information
complexity in the course of reaching your conclusion.
Eros
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:56:16 +0000 (UTC),
> Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message news:<Xns95497A22DB50B...@199.45.49.11>...
> >> news:k6KdnQErqZg...@comcast.com by dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net>:
> >>
> >> > This is probably an incredibly obvious question, but I've never seen it
> >> > asked or indirectly answered on TO before. What are the exact signal
> >> > patterns that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is
> >> > scanning for that will to a high degree of certainty indicate that the
> >> > signals come from an intelligent designer(s) (uncapitalized) somewhere
> >> > out there in the stars, and not from some bizarre and presently unknown
> >> > process of nature.
> >> >
> >> > Part 2 of the question is: could this type of pattern analysis be used
> >> > by Intelligent Design theory?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --dk...@cris.com
> >> >
> >> Chez Watt winner from 03SEP02:
> >> "SETI is based on the simple assumption that nature operates
> >> elsewhere the same way it does here. ID is based on the assumption
> >> that nature doesn't even work here."
> >
> > I don't know why that was a "Chez Watt", Ferrous. I think it's a very
> > clever and apt comparison.
>
> And is thus eminently qualified as a Chez Watt, which also covers such
> delightful little witticisms.
Sorry, I guess I'll have to modify my definition of "Chez Watt", I
took it to have rather more of a negative connotation.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And if you can't make sense out of what I say, how do you know it is
nonsense?" -- Glenn Sheldon (Talk.Origins, 2003-11-28)
Mark VandeWettering
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.20....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:49:32 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>>
>> >> We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether
> the
>> >> pros or the cons make the most convincing argument.
>> >
>> > Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate
> signal,
>> > assuming they ever get one.
>>
>> Don't random 'signals' have more complexity than intelligent messages?
>
> For a certain definition of "complexity", and "information", I suppose.
For the definition of "information" and "complexity" that is used in all
communications engineering, this is true. SETI researchers are actually
searching for signals which display patterns of low complexity, not high.
They are essentially searching for beacons: slowly modulated carriers which
may be Doppler-shifted by the motion of their sources.
> What is this bullshit question? Either agree or disagree with SETI.
Your argument has nothing to do with how modern SETI attempts work.
> I'm not an expert.
That much is apparent.
>> If
>> we post some bit strings, can you reliably tell us which are messages
> and
>> which are noise? Which have intelligent causes and which have other
>> causes?
>>
> All posted bit strings would have intelligent causes. That's a safe bet
> since SETI has not located ET yet.
This couplet makes even less sense than your usual ignorance.
Mark
David Sienkiewicz
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.20....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:49:32 +0000, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
>
> > >> We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether
> the
> > >> pros or the cons make the most convincing argument.
> > >
> > > Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate
> signal,
> > > assuming they ever get one.
> >
> > Don't random 'signals' have more complexity than intelligent messages?
>
> For a certain definition of "complexity", and "information", I suppose.
Okay, "major," how would you define those terms and what application
do you feel is appropriate?
> What is this bullshit question? Either agree or disagree with SETI. I'm
> not an expert.
Ah, for once, a TRUE statement from you, sheldon!
Well, we don't get that many, so we should mark this day.
> > If
> > we post some bit strings, can you reliably tell us which are messages
> and
> > which are noise? Which have intelligent causes and which have other
> > causes?
> >
> All posted bit strings would have intelligent causes. That's a safe bet
> since SETI has not located ET yet.
Why is it a "safe bet since SETI has not located ET yet?" What's the
relationship?
As I understand it, "major," digital signals are really nothing more
than bit strings, and any analog signal, including noise, can be
converted.
So if that is true, I suppose you could be playing your games again,
and saying that any bit string, even if it's noise, had to have been
intelligently converted to digital, no?
Someone had to INTEND to do it.
So, golly, gee, we have a bit string. Even if it's noise, it was
caused by intelligence.
Is that a bit of a stupid argument? Of course it is.
But we've come to expect no less of you, "major."
David Sienkiewicz
You have to be careful when you look, "major," or sometimes you wind
up doing something stupid, as when you references a Star Trek GAME
site to make a point about REAL LIFE military rank.
I still get a chuckle out of that!
> http://www.seti.org/about_us/voices/doyle.php
> "What if we get an extraterrestrial signal that's not 9th order but 20th
> order in complexity," theorizes Doyle.
Now what do you suppose that means, sheldon?
> "Right away, we know their
> communication ability exceeds ours by about as much as ours exceeds
> ground squirrels. In other words, we're going to know where we stand
> right away. Even an extraterrestrial transmission would have to obey the
> rules of information theory."
And what do you suppose THIS means, sheldon, within the context of
what is being discussed here? In other words, if you have a point,
you should state it.
By the way, sheldon, do you still think that the genome is
intelligent?
David Sienkiewicz
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
> >
> > > There still is no discussion of how a signal passing through all
> further
> > > filters discussed on the above page can be characterized as
> > > "intelligent,"
> >
> > Frankly I don't think predefining a general test is even _possible_.
>
> As possible as anything else.
Is it?
Well, then, by all means, do so.
> > We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether the
> pros
> > or the cons make the most convincing argument.
>
> Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate signal,
> assuming they ever get one.
Define "information complexity," "major."
> > > let alone how any message within the signal could be decoded.
> >
> > For general messages, this is a doozie too. Unknown message in an
> unknown
> > language using an unknown representation scheme. Where to start,
> without
> > a Rosetta stone?
> >
> The "Shannon" stone.
Ah, yes, information theory.
Okay, sheldon, apply it.
Let's see what you've got.
Howard Hershey
Glenn wrote:
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:32 +0000, dkomo wrote:
> >
> > > There still is no discussion of how a signal passing through all
> further
> > > filters discussed on the above page can be characterized as
> > > "intelligent,"
> >
> > Frankly I don't think predefining a general test is even _possible_.
>
> As possible as anything else.
> >
> > We'l just have to look at the _specific_ signal, and see whether the
> pros
> > or the cons make the most convincing argument.
> >
> Bull. SETI will determine information complexity in a candidate signal,
> assuming they ever get one.
First, note that you seem to agree that in identifying a candidate
signal, the SETI researchers are not using any tools related to the
content of the message, but only using the physical properties of the
carrier signal as identifiers. ID theory plays no role in identifying a
candidate signal.
Once a candidate signal (basically one that is narrow cast and has
extraterrestrial origins) is found, then comes the problem of
determining whether it is from an unknown natural unintelligent source
or due to an intelligent agent. The problem here is that the simplistic
IDea that the more complex the message, the more likely it is due to an
intelligent source is flat out wrong. It will, in fact, be easier to
identify a source as due to intelligence if it is a *simple* and
uncomplex signal. Ideally, it should be neither too simple nor too complex.
Look at human languages and how we decode them. If I wanted to make an
unbreakable code, I would simply produce a language that never repeated
itself, but changed a word to a new one each time it popped up. This
would be a very complex (and untranslatable) language and would be
indistinguishable from noise. It would appear to be a random sequence.
OTOH, if I wanted to make a breakable code, I would present a repeating
signal of some sort. But if the signal repetitiveness is too simple, it
may be due to some simple natural repetitive process. Basically, then,
the ideal signal, if I wanted the signal to be understood as due to
intelligence, would be simple but not too simple. The more complex the
signal, the more likely that the listener would regard it as a form of noise.
John Bode
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.20....@mail.utexas.edu...
[snip]
> > If we post some bit strings, can you reliably tell us which are messages
> > and which are noise? Which have intelligent causes and which have other
> > causes?
> >
> All posted bit strings would have intelligent causes.
Not necessarily. A posted bit string may simply be output captured
from a sensor tracking a random process, such as radioactive decay, or
thermal variations in a CPU, or seismic activity. Just because
someone posts it doesn't mean the bit string itself had an intelligent
origin.
> That's a safe bet since SETI has not located ET yet.
Huh?
dkomo
The "intelligence" in a message might be characterized by how much it
can be compressed. Using the familiar ZIP compresssion algorithm, we
can distinguish three cases:
1. normal ASCII text compresses about 90% (a rule of thumb)
2. random text compresses hardly at all
3. artificially produced repetitve text compresses close to 100%; for
example the string "repeat_this repeat_this repeat_this..." would
compress to just a few bytes. Ditto for the bit string "0101101011...".
A human-produced ASCII file could be recognized by its compression ratio
somehere around 90%.
dkomo
A intelligent alien race would likely send messages that could be easily
decoded. Otherwise, why would they bother sending messages at all?
They might even send clues within the messages how to decode those
messages. For example, the message "header" might contain the first N
numbers in the Fibonacci series, each integer number encoded by a
corresponding number of "on" or high amplitude pulses, the numbers
separated by "off" pulses.
Another likely possibility is sending low resolution digital images.
Digital binary numbers are probably universal for intelligent races.
And the idea of sampling an analog signal and converting it into binary
numbers is likely to be a stock technique in any advanced technology.
All we would have to do to convert those numbers back into an image is
to guess what the bit length of the samples is. And there are only a
small number of possibilities for these lengths.
Ferrous Patella
> Another likely possibility is sending low resolution digital images.
> Digital binary numbers are probably universal for intelligent races.
> And the idea of sampling an analog signal and converting it into
> binary numbers is likely to be a stock technique in any advanced
> technology. All we would have to do to convert those numbers back into
> an image is to guess what the bit length of the samples is. And there
> are only a small number of possibilities for these lengths.
Are you taking about digital visual images. How about digital orfactory
images? Tactile? Maybe some sensory perception that uses gamma rays? If
the images were visual and included polarization information, would we
reconize it? Would they reconize it if we sent color information.
Our bias for visual information (and our senses in general) makes this
seem easier than it might be.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits
Earle Jones
*
Clearly the moon is much more important than the sun. The moon
comes out at night when we need the light. The sun, on the other
hand, comes out in the daytime, when it as already light.
Geocentrists and flat-earthers just won't go away -- sort of like
IDers and creationists.
earle
*
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
dkomo
> news:Ut2dnTSLwMb...@comcast.com by dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>
>>Another likely possibility is sending low resolution digital images.
>>Digital binary numbers are probably universal for intelligent races.
>>And the idea of sampling an analog signal and converting it into
>>binary numbers is likely to be a stock technique in any advanced
>>technology. All we would have to do to convert those numbers back into
>>an image is to guess what the bit length of the samples is. And there
>>are only a small number of possibilities for these lengths.
>
>
>
> Are you taking about digital visual images. How about digital orfactory
> images? Tactile? Maybe some sensory perception that uses gamma rays? If
> the images were visual and included polarization information, would we
> reconize it? Would they reconize it if we sent color information.
>
> Our bias for visual information (and our senses in general) makes this
> seem easier than it might be.
>
I got the idea for the digital visual images from the Pioneer 10 plaque:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque
and the Voayger Golden Record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record#Recording_Cover_Diagram
although the Voyager record was an analog rather than a digital disc.
The Pioneer plaque contains several images which I think would be
obvious to any visually oriented alien race. These are the line
drawings of the man and women, and the drawing of the planets of the
solar systems showing which planet Pioneer was launched from. The rest
of the drawings are not so obvious, as the web explains. Also, it's
comical to note the controversy that was caused because the man and
woman were naked and their genitals were shown:
"According to Sagan (Murmurs of Earth, 1978, New York, ISBN 0679744444),
there were many negative reactions to the plaque due to the fact that
the human beings were displayed naked. The Chicago Sun Times retouched
its image to hide the genitals of the man and woman. The Los Angeles
Times received "angry letters" from readers which accused NASA of
wasting taxpayer money to send "obscenities" into space."
If a visually oriented alien race were to send us a signal, I think it
quite likely they would send digitally encoded simple line drawings of
themselves, showing possibly their sexes if they had them, or different
species if they had those.
dkomo
> news:Ut2dnTSLwMb...@comcast.com by dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>
>>Another likely possibility is sending low resolution digital images.
>>Digital binary numbers are probably universal for intelligent races.
>>And the idea of sampling an analog signal and converting it into
>>binary numbers is likely to be a stock technique in any advanced
>>technology. All we would have to do to convert those numbers back into
>>an image is to guess what the bit length of the samples is. And there
>>are only a small number of possibilities for these lengths.
>
>
>
> Are you taking about digital visual images. How about digital orfactory
> images? Tactile? Maybe some sensory perception that uses gamma rays? If
> the images were visual and included polarization information, would we
> reconize it? Would they reconize it if we sent color information.
>
> Our bias for visual information (and our senses in general) makes this
> seem easier than it might be.
>
[ignore my previous post -- it was sent prematurely and was incomplete]
I got the idea for the digital visual images from the Pioneer 10 plaque:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque
and the Voayger Golden Record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record#Recording_Cover_Diagram
although the Voyager record was an analog rather than a digital disc.
The Pioneer plaque contains several images which I think would be
obvious to any visually oriented alien race. These are the line
drawings of the man and women, and the drawing of the planets of the
solar systems showing which planet Pioneer was launched from. The rest
of the drawings are not so obvious, as the web page explains. Also,
it's comical to note the controversy that was caused because the man and
woman were naked and their genitals were shown:
"According to Sagan (Murmurs of Earth, 1978, New York, ISBN 0679744444),
there were many negative reactions to the plaque due to the fact that
the human beings were displayed naked. The Chicago Sun Times retouched
its image to hide the genitals of the man and woman. The Los Angeles
Times received "angry letters" from readers which accused NASA of
wasting taxpayer money to send "obscenities" into space."
If a visually oriented alien race were to send us a signal, I think it
quite likely they would send digitally encoded simple line drawings of
themselves, showing possibly their sexes if they had them, or different
species if they had those.
Digital images are more likely to be sent because of the improved noise
immunity relative to analog signals like television signals. Besides,
analog television signals are rather complex and arbitrarily tied to a
particular implementation of television technology. Digital samples of
an image are more obvious, easier to interpret, and universal.
I think that digital visual images would more likely be sent than
olfactory, auditory or tactile "images" because I don't think an
intelligent race could develop without a dominant visual ability. They
might perceive light within a different frequency range than we do, but
shapes would appear similar. For example, infrared images show
recognizable shapes such as houses with windows, tanks, people, and so
forth. And "bee's eye" pictures of flowers taken in ultraviolet light
clearly show the shapes of those flowers. And if line drawings were
sent, problems involving color or polarization wouldn't occur.
Of course, if the race transmitting the signals were super intelligent
canine-like beings, they might indeed want to give us an idea of what
they smelled like. But if they were anything like earth dogs, and since
we know what parts of other dogs dogs like to smell for identification,
we probably wouldn't be to keen to sample the decoded smells. :-)
David Sienkiewicz
"major," these and many other questions - some topical, some not -
await answers.
Of course, we all know that you're just a blustering, bluffing and
lying punk. All that talk of being here to fight was just that -
talk.
You weren't going to take it lying down, you told us; but you lie down
for me - pretty much every time.
You, of course, have ducked out of this thread and several others, and
then you show up again, pretending that none of it happened.
You, who are so free to call others "liar," are among the most
flagrant of liars.
Then you whine about name-calling and rude behavior, which means
you're a hypocrite, too.
And, of course, there's that afore-mentioned brave talk about how
you're here to fight with any "weapons" at your disposal.
It's too bad you don't really have any weapons, sheldon.
Ah, but this is talk.origins and, more often than not, anyone can take
a leave and come back to a pretty clean slate. I've noticed that most
of the folks here can be pretty forgiving.
Obviously, with respect to the above, you've got nothin', but I stand
willing and able to be proven wrong.
Go for it.
You KNOW *I* will.