Re: SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134187953.940287.231450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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,

Well, you'll find something that has a pattern, anyway.

> and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.

Yeah. Allegedly.

>
> 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.

Is that what you're looking for then? What's the encoding? Let's run
the experiment.

> 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?

SETI has already been fooled. When pulsar signals were first received,
it was first thought their pattern was simply too regular to be natural.
Ooops.

>
> 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?

Confirmation would require two-way communication, and there just
too much delay involved

> Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> signal?
>
> Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.

Imagine my surprise.

Deadrat

>
> (Please try not to let non-pattern issues from the other topic spill
> into this one.)
>
>
> -T-
>

.

Relevant Pages