Taq writes:
Are we sending out a signal like the one you describe, one that could be detected across large galactic distances?
I don't know. But if we are sending signals and we want to say something like "We exist and we are reasonably intelligent" then the sort of signal I descibed would seem a decent way of doing that.
But I am not claiming any special knowledge or expertise here. Frankly I naively thought I was onto an original (in EvC terms) comparison until Mod and others made it obvious that this topic has done the rounds previously.
Taq writes:
If a distant civilization picked up our signal they could at least determine that we are using a binary code of some sort, or at least using modulation within the signal to convey information. I think this would be enough to determine that there is an intelligence behind the signal.
OK. This brings us back to the thread focus. How could they tell it was intelligently sourced? What
exactlyis it that gives it away? Specifity? Complexity? What?
I ask not because I disagree with you but because I don't know exactly what it is that
does make something obviously intelligently sourced.
IDists throw up all sorts of things. Information. Specifity. Complexity. Etc. But when you ask them in what way these things are exhibited and how you can tell them from that which occurs without intelligence they fudge and fumble and ultimately resort to an "It's obvious when you see it" approach.
If SETI is different (and I think it is) I am asking in what sense exactly is it different in terms of objectively differentiating between genuine intelligent sourcing and the sort of thinking that leads some to conclude that life on Earth (for example)
must be intelligently designed.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.