Re: SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition


Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> > comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> > searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> > in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> > scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> > Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> > research effort.
> >
> > Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> > intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
> > argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> > find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
> > and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
> >
> > However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> > signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> > buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> > million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> > evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> > or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> > intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> > signals?
> >
> > I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
> > signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> > to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> > width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> > intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
> >
> > Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> > signal?
>
> I'm dubious.
>
>
> > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>
> Notice that one of the differences between SETI and ID is that the
> SETI people aren't pretending that they have a magic formula they
> can apply to observations to 'prove' that it came from an ETI.
>
> Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
> trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts. The closest
> thing ID has to a hypothesis is "somebody did something and therefore
> E.coli has a flagellum". It's hard to derive any kind of prediction
> at all out of that.
>

To elaborate a bit, SETI researchers have decided what a signal from
another civilisation might look like, and are looking for it. ID is
looking at existing data and declaring any pattern they can find is
evidence for design.

If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
they went looking.

Also, "alternating sequences of pi and prime numbers"? That would be
obscure. Also, since any given sequence appears in pi if you go back
far enough, you're almost certain to find it.
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas

.

Relevant Pages