S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

StephenJ -> S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/18/2008 1:32:53 AM)

I use to have some really serious arguments (something I regret now) with someone who didn't believe God would put sentient life on other planets.

I was curious what everyone on this board thought of the prospect of other civilizations out there.

Thanks in advance.



unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/18/2008 6:11:01 PM)

ORIGINAL:StephenJ
quote:

I was curious what everyone on this board thought of the prospect of other civilizations out there.

It's irrelevant.



StephenJ -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/18/2008 8:18:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:StephenJ
quote:

I was curious what everyone on this board thought of the prospect of other civilizations out there.

It's irrelevant.


I suppouse so, but I guess it's fun to speculate on.



xc279 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/21/2008 10:15:45 PM)

In what way would it be irrelevant? Can you think of anything more relevant?



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/21/2008 10:20:39 PM)

quote:

In what way would it be irrelevant? Can you think of anything more relevant?


Sure - world peace. Personal peace for that matter. Or the advancement of liberty, the ability to maintain successful relationships, families, communities, etc. What I am having for breakfast. Lot's of things (most things, actually) are more relevant, and for the foreseeable future will be - but it still may be an interesting question.
Personally, I wonder if life is the product of fairly straightforward natural processes why it only seems to have occurred here.



Real_Solitude -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/21/2008 10:40:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Personally, I wonder if life is the product of fairly straightforward natural processes why it only seems to have occurred here.


Come on Jhud, you know the answer to this one.
S.E.T.I. can only detect intelligent life. More specifically, it can only detect intelligent life broadcasting in specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Even if life were to occur on one planet in every solar system, there's no way of telling if any of them would ever achieve the kind of intelligence necessary to create radio technology. Cognitive intelligence isn't necessarily a survival trait to be favored. Not to side with CognitiveMagic, but it's possible that a technical society will tend to destroy itself. If this is true, there may only be brief (100 or so year) period of radio transmission from any intelligent civilization before it kills itself. Among the vast number of species, extinct and extant, to exist on earth, only one has ever achieved radio technology. If life is fairly rare, and intelligence even rarer, there may not exist an intelligent species within our ability to detect them. Not to mention that we've only been monitoring for a short while.

There may be life everywhere, but we won't know unless it's broadcasting in specific frequencies, or we gain intersystem space travel.



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/21/2008 11:08:50 PM)

quote:

Come on Jhud, you know the answer to this one.
S.E.T.I. can only detect intelligent life. More specifically, it can only detect intelligent life broadcasting in specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Even if life were to occur on one planet in every solar system, there's no way of telling if any of them would ever achieve the kind of intelligence necessary to create radio technology. Cognitive intelligence isn't necessarily a survival trait to be favored. Not to side with CognitiveMagic, but it's possible that a technical society will tend to destroy itself. If this is true, there may only be brief (100 or so year) period of radio transmission from any intelligent civilization before it kills itself. Among the vast number of species, extinct and extant, to exist on earth, only one has ever achieved radio technology. If life is fairly rare, and intelligence even rarer, there may not exist an intelligent species within our ability to detect them. Not to mention that we've only been monitoring for a short while.

There may be life everywhere, but we won't know unless it's broadcasting in specific frequencies, or we gain intersystem space travel.


I'm not talking about intelligent life, I am talking about anything; we have a few other planets in this solar system that where some critter could presumably develop from the same processes as were thought to have occurred on earth.



ManimalX -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/21/2008 11:44:34 PM)

I have to agree with jhud: irrelevant, at least until any event makes it relevant. We have a billion things we need to worry about here first.

Although, C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy is one of the best sci-fi/theological set of stories ever written.



unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/22/2008 6:03:08 PM)

ORIGINAL: xc279
quote:

In what way would it be irrelevant? Can you think of anything more relevant?

Jack did a good job of answering.
However, your questions indicate you take the S.E.T.I. program quite seriously making you the ideal person to ask. What would S.E.T.I. consider as indisputable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence?



StephenJ -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/22/2008 6:11:27 PM)

I think it's interesting.

I mean we have the technology to detect planets orbiting other stars. They're large, but our instruments are getting more and more sensative.

I wouldn't be suprised if we locate an Earthlike planet within the next decade.



StephenJ -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/22/2008 6:16:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: xc279
quote:

In what way would it be irrelevant? Can you think of anything more relevant?

Jack did a good job of answering.
However, your questions indicate you take the S.E.T.I. program quite seriously making you the ideal person to ask. What would S.E.T.I. consider as indisputable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence?


A clearly artificial signal from a clearly non terrestrial source.



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/22/2008 7:20:46 PM)

quote:

A clearly artificial signal from a clearly non terrestrial source.


Hey Stephen,

What in yor opinion would allow us to distinguish a artificial signal from the regular radio signals that pervade space?



Real_Solitude -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/22/2008 7:49:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
What in yor opinion would allow us to distinguish a artificial signal from the regular radio signals that pervade space?


Well, if we picked up 'leaked' radio signals from another civilization, they should be readily apparent. If humanity is any indication of what types of signals will leak from a technologically capable planet, then voices and organized data would be the majority of what leaks. SETI@home "searches for four types of signals that distinguish them from noise: signals:
* Spikes in power spectra
* Gaussian rises and falls in transmission power, possibly representing the telescope beam's main lobe passing over a radio source
* Triplets — three power spikes in a row
* Pulsing signals that possibly represent a narrowband digital-style transmission"

For an example, one candidate was "Radio source SHGb02+14a is a source and a candidate in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), discovered on March 2003 by SETI@home and announced in New Scientist on September 1, 2004.

The source was observed three times at a frequency of about 1420 MHz, which is expected to be a frequency used by extraterrestrials due to its proximity to one of the main frequencies at which hydrogen absorbs and radiates photons."



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/22/2008 9:23:10 PM)

quote:

Well, if we picked up 'leaked' radio signals from another civilization, they should be readily apparent. If humanity is any indication of what types of signals will leak from a technologically capable planet, then voices and organized data would be the majority of what leaks. SETI@home "searches for four types of signals that distinguish them from noise: signals:
* Spikes in power spectra
* Gaussian rises and falls in transmission power, possibly representing the telescope beam's main lobe passing over a radio source
* Triplets — three power spikes in a row
* Pulsing signals that possibly represent a narrowband digital-style transmission"

For an example, one candidate was "Radio source SHGb02+14a is a source and a candidate in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), discovered on March 2003 by SETI@home and announced in New Scientist on September 1, 2004.

The source was observed three times at a frequency of about 1420 MHz, which is expected to be a frequency used by extraterrestrials due to its proximity to one of the main frequencies at which hydrogen absorbs and radiates photons."


So you are suggesting that signals produced by human technologies are a valid basis for detecting an alien intelligence?



essentialsaltes -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 12:21:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

So you are suggesting that signals produced by human technologies are a valid basis for detecting an alien intelligence?


Human technologies produce many kinds of signals. Some are no different from noise, some have a non-noisy signal. Natural phenomena also produce both noisy and non-noisy signals. Something that would be really convincing would be the analog of the ham-radio frequencies that carry audio of people reciting numbers. Although it would be better still if the message were not just mysterious, but actually conveyed a message we could decipher.



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 2:16:44 AM)

quote:

Human technologies produce many kinds of signals. Some are no different from noise, some have a non-noisy signal. Natural phenomena also produce both noisy and non-noisy signals. Something that would be really convincing would be the analog of the ham-radio frequencies that carry audio of people reciting numbers. Although it would be better still if the message were not just mysterious, but actually conveyed a message we could decipher.


That wasn't an answer to the question - the question was, are signals produced by human technologies are a valid basis for detecting an alien intelligence?



unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 3:25:06 AM)

ORIGINAL:StephenJ
quote:

quote:

What would S.E.T.I. consider as indisputable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence?

A clearly artificial signal from a clearly non terrestrial source.

An encrypted code would be accepted then as indisputable evidence of an intelligent source?



essentialsaltes -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 10:10:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Human technologies produce many kinds of signals. Some are no different from noise, some have a non-noisy signal. Natural phenomena also produce both noisy and non-noisy signals. Something that would be really convincing would be the analog of the ham-radio frequencies that carry audio of people reciting numbers. Although it would be better still if the message were not just mysterious, but actually conveyed a message we could decipher.


That wasn't an answer to the question - the question was, are signals produced by human technologies are a valid basis for detecting an alien intelligence?


I'm not sure I quite understand your question. IF we received a radio signal (of extraterrestrial origin) that just happened to be an NTSC TV signal carrying video of Desperate Alien Housewives, this would be a valid basis for inferring an alien intelligence (if not taste). Other possibilities that are 'unlike' human technologies are also possible.



I know where your garden path is leading, so to skip to the ending, the analogy between biochemistry and human technology remains unconvincing.



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 10:44:27 AM)

quote:

'm not sure I quite understand your question. IF we received a radio signal (of extraterrestrial origin) that just happened to be an NTSC TV signal carrying video of Desperate Alien Housewives, this would be a valid basis for inferring an alien intelligence (if not taste). Other possibilities that are 'unlike' human technologies are also possible.


So then the answer is yes, that comparisons with human technologies are valid for evaluating that something is the product of intelligence.

In fact, SETI is primarily based on that notion; that radio technologies similar to our own would be an expected means of communication by an alien intelligence.

This invalidates the argument that IDists can't infer the activities of other intelligences by the activity of human intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence.

quote:

I know where your garden path is leading, so to skip to the ending, the analogy between biochemistry and human technology remains unconvincing.


Apparently the logic is convincing to SETI scientists as they have invested their careers in it.



unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 2:13:54 PM)

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

This invalidates the argument that IDists can't infer the activities of other intelligences by the activity of human intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence.

Thanks Jack. That’s the point I was after. It is proper to consider DNA an encrypted code, is it not?
I suppose it is asking too much to expect any of the ID deniers here to admit to the obvious.

quote:

Apparently the logic is convincing to SETI scientists as they have invested their careers in it.

Looks like S.E.T.I. needs to be labeled religion so it can be banned from public schools. After all NOTHING that has the potential of casting doubt on atheist dogma can be tolerated.



drj11 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 2:43:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

This invalidates the argument that IDists can't infer the activities of other intelligences by the activity of human intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence.

Thanks Jack. That’s the point I was after. It is proper to consider DNA an encrypted code, is it not?
I suppose it is asking too much to expect any of the ID deniers here to admit to the obvious.

quote:

Apparently the logic is convincing to SETI scientists as they have invested their careers in it.

Looks like S.E.T.I. needs to be labeled religion so it can be banned from public schools. After all NOTHING that has the potential of casting doubt on atheist dogma can be tolerated.


Damn, I guess I need to send out a memo to all the other members of the vast atheist conspiracy. After all, if we detect any radio noise, it should automatically be assumed to be designed by God. This stands in direct contrast to atheistic materialism that has hi-jacked science. We can't have that.

The difference here is that the origins (and designers, if you will) are much more well understood than with organic life. We know exactly what kind of signals known designers produce, and what kind of signals are likely to be produced by nature. Based on this knowledge we can distinguish between the two. We don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge of life's origins to make such distinctions in regards to life.

It should also be noted that part of the criteria for detecting 'designed' radio signals as a product of intelligence is a lack of complexity... which stands in stark contrast to Behe's ideas on complexity and design.



StephenJ -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 3:59:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

'm not sure I quite understand your question. IF we received a radio signal (of extraterrestrial origin) that just happened to be an NTSC TV signal carrying video of Desperate Alien Housewives, this would be a valid basis for inferring an alien intelligence (if not taste). Other possibilities that are 'unlike' human technologies are also possible.


So then the answer is yes, that comparisons with human technologies are valid for evaluating that something is the product of intelligence.

In fact, SETI is primarily based on that notion; that radio technologies similar to our own would be an expected means of communication by an alien intelligence.

This invalidates the argument that IDists can't infer the activities of other intelligences by the activity of human intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence.

quote:

I know where your garden path is leading, so to skip to the ending, the analogy between biochemistry and human technology remains unconvincing.


Apparently the logic is convincing to SETI scientists as they have invested their careers in it.


Well alot of scientest figure that the laws of physics are universal. So an alien society may, through independant invention, figure out a way to send messages that our similar to our broadcasting technology.



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 4:24:06 PM)

quote:

Damn, I guess I need to send out a memo to all the other members of the vast atheist conspiracy. After all, if we detect any radio noise, it should automatically be assumed to be designed by God. This stands in direct contrast to atheistic materialism that has hi-jacked science. We can't have that.


Actually, what you need to do if you want to be consistent with materialistic thinking is assume that regardless of the nature of the radio noise, even if it can be decoded and shown to be the plans for a sophisticated inter-galactic transportation device, is still the product of unguided mechanisms, because to suggest otherwise would be an ‘alien of the gaps’ fallacy.

quote:

The difference here is that the origins (and designers, if you will) are much more well understood than with organic life. We know exactly what kind of signals known designers produce, and what kind of signals are likely to be produced by nature. Based on this knowledge we can distinguish between the two. We don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge of life's origins to make such distinctions in regards to life.


Actually, the only knowledge we have in regards to what signals ‘designers’ produce is what signals we (as humans) produce. We infer that other intelligent beings would do the same – and that is a good inference.

Of course, we didn’t produce radio signals at all 200 hundred years ago, so such an inference couldn’t be made, but as our technology grew more sophisticated, so did our range of knowledge of what intelligence is capable of.

And that, in a nutshell, is why ID has come of age; because humans finally know that an intelligence can produce and manipulate encoded information via DNA, because we can.

quote:

It should also be noted that part of the criteria for detecting 'designed' radio signals as a product of intelligence is a lack of complexity... which stands in stark contrast to Behe's ideas on complexity and design.


Actually, no. While such signals are easy to describe, they are not easy to produce, which is where complexity comes in – though not irreducible complexity a la Behe, but specific complexity a la Dembski – that is that the specific signal is improbable based on the complex means needed to generate it.



Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/23/2008 4:25:19 PM)

quote:

Well alot of scientest figure that the laws of physics are universal. So an alien society may, through independant invention, figure out a way to send messages that our similar to our broadcasting technology.


I agree; I think intelligence is independent of the particulars of biology.



drj11 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (4/24/2008 11:08:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, the only knowledge we have in regards to what signals ‘designers’ produce is what signals we (as humans) produce. We infer that other intelligent beings would do the same – and that is a good inference.

Of course, we didn’t produce radio signals at all 200 hundred years ago, so such an inference couldn’t be made, but as our technology grew more sophisticated, so did our range of knowledge of what intelligence is capable of.


With SETI, we are comparing radio signals to radio signals. Radio signals certainly have well understood natural sources, and artificial sources (us). Its an apples to apples comparison.

This is quite a far stretch from looking at the way a computer works, for example, and saying its evidence that DNA was designed.

quote:


And that, in a nutshell, is why ID has come of age; because humans finally know that an intelligence can produce and manipulate encoded information via DNA, because we can.


I think ID may come of age eventually, perhaps.. but not in the way I think you imagine. There may be a time when our genetic engineering has progressed, and we can then look at patterns in our genetic designs and derive if an organism was designed/tampered with by humans, or resulted from natural causes. Then perhaps if we ever discovered life on another planet we might be able to directly compare the patterns in our genetic engineering with patterns in the alien organisms (assuming they run on DNA) and perhaps infer if they were designed by another intelligence or from natural causes. Just like SETI attempts to do with radio signals. This would also make ID more like systemic flaking, which you described in another thread.

But as ID stands now, it bears no resemblance to either. Just because we understand enough about DNA/RNA to manipulate it, I still don't see why this is grounds for us making the assumption that it was designed. By that logic, any natural thing that mankind learns to manipulate and control we should infer design by default.

quote:


Actually, no. While such signals are easy to describe, they are not easy to produce, which is where complexity comes in – though not irreducible complexity a la Behe, but specific complexity a la Dembski – that is that the specific signal is improbable based on the complex means needed to generate it.


We can make good guesses on the natural/artificial causes of radio waves simply because we have good understandings of what the end products of each 'look like' and we have intimate knowledge of most of the processes that form them, not because of the specified complexity formula. Again, we are comparing radio waves to radio waves. ID is comparing apples to..... well i don't even know what.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI