Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
84 online now:
frako, PaulK, rstrats, Tangle (4 members, 80 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,621 Year: 1,369/23,288 Month: 1,369/1,851 Week: 9/484 Day: 9/93 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting Intelligence - SETI and ID Compared
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 12 of 46 (644953)
12-21-2011 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
12-21-2011 1:05 PM


SETI are running an experiment to look for something they can consider to be a known possibility (because they already have one example). I.Ders are claiming that they've already found indirect evidence for the existence of something that isn't a known possibility (one or more non-living intelligent designers).

SETI people point to one thing we intelligently design (artificial radio noise) and go looking for that same thing elsewhere with the ultimate objective of detecting the existence of other intelligent life forms.

IDers point to things we intelligently design, draw analogies to different things, and then try to make the inference that those things also are intelligently designed.

The two groups aren't proceeding in the same way at all.

SETI aren't actually looking for something like your hypothetical example. But I'd say that the I.D. equivalent of your example would be something like the discovery of a message encoded in our D.N.A. which, if translated into English might read something like "I am your maker. Signed Zeus".

Like your example, I think that would be a winner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2011 1:05 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2011 6:24 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 13 of 46 (644954)
12-21-2011 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2011 4:51 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Jar writes:

Can we even recognize intelligence that is quite different than our own?

Are you talking about the ID crowd?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 43 of 46 (645146)
12-23-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Just being real
12-23-2011 6:07 AM


Just being real writes:

I would suggest that since only things with an "intended purpose" can be achieved by an intelligent source, that "intended purpose" would be one type of IP.

I think you meant to say that things with an "intended purpose" can be achieved only by an intelligent source. Am I right?

JBR writes:

In communication, symbols or sounds etc. are transmitted for the intended purpose to be received and relay information.

No. We certainly can't assume intent in everything that's communicated. Did you mean "in intelligently designed communication?"

JBR writes:

Observation has not ever revealed a naturally occurring narrow band so the thought is that narrow bands would require an intentional artificial source.

That's incomplete and misleading. The SETI observation is not only that unintelligent sources are not known to produce what SETI are looking for, but also, and very importantly, that one intelligent source definitely is known to produce exactly what they are looking for.

Just being real writes:

So then the big question. If in the SETI case, IP would be suspected just at the detection of a narrow bandwidth (completely void of knowing the existence of R or not), why then when we very clearly have the presence of T, R, and O in the case of DNA code, is it not considered to be IP?

SETI aren't looking for your "T" (which you define loosely as a "complex pattern") or for "R". They are simply looking for other examples of something that they already have one example of, and for which, in the case of that one example, they know the cause.

Macromolecules do not do things with "intended purpose". A transmitter receiver relationship does not require intelligence on the part of either sender or receiver. SETI receives signals all the time and ignores them for this reason. They (SETI) are intelligent receivers, but they've no reason so far to suspect that any of the senders are intelligent.

Cells transmit and receive signals all the time, and they have no intelligence. And surely you can think of examples when you receive signals that your brain can translate into knowledge and action, but there is no intelligent intent on the part of the senders of those signals?

Edited by bluegenes, : missing word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Just being real, posted 12-23-2011 6:07 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Just being real, posted 12-27-2011 7:07 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 46 of 46 (645483)
12-27-2011 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Just being real
12-27-2011 7:07 AM


JBR writes:

Excuse me? I didn't define "T" as a complex pattern. T could actually be any pattern or shape. And I didn't say that they were looking for T. I said they were looking of an inference of IP by the existence of T+R+O, which is what they would have if they found such a signal.

So you're saying that "any pattern or shape" plus a "receiver" plus an observer would mean "intelligent purpose" on the part of the sender or originator of the pattern or shape?

That is clearly not the case. Surely you can think of examples.

JBR writes:

I'm not saying that the function can not occur apart from intelligence. Again my wrist watch runs quite well with out a single intelligent sole around. It is the detection of intelligence that requires an intelligent observer. However I can detect intelligence in the transmitter receiver relationship of the parts within my watch. I am saying that this type of design function requires an original intelligence to create the process.

I understand what you're claiming, but I'm pointing out that the claim isn't supported by observation. Because there are transmitter-receiver relationships in human designs is no reason to infer that all transmitter-receiver relationships are intelligently designed. SETI does not infer this, otherwise they would already be claiming to have identified intelligence elsewhere in the universe.

Unintelligent things can certainly originate signals. SETI are looking for a signal that they think shows the symptoms of artificiality. Your watch certainly could be said to contain signs of artificiality, and a timepiece made by intelligent alien life forms might well have such signs. But that does not mean that all phenomena by which we can measure time (the sun, the moon, tides etc.) are intelligently designed.

Let's reshape your formula. AT (artificial transmission) + R (receiver) + O (observer) = IP (intelligent purpose). Now, that might be (tautologically) true, but it's useless, because it leaves us with the problem of establishing the "A" in AT. Whether or not SETI is a worthwhile project depends on their evidence and reasoning in relation to the artificiality of a persistent, simple narrow band signal. It's a technical question, and a number of lines of evidence are involved.

I would argue that there's no simple universal formula for SETI (or archaeologists) to determine "A" (artificiality) in objects. So, even looking for signs of biological intelligence isn't straightforward, although it can be done.

As for what non-living intelligence might do if it existed, we haven't got a single example, and we have no idea, let alone a formula.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Just being real, posted 12-27-2011 7:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020