Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Irreducible Complexity: the primordial condition of biology

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

nutshell

In 1996, Lehigh University professor of biochemistry, Michael Behe, published his first book Darwin’s Black Box, which famously advanced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC) to prominent status in the conversation of design in biology. In his book, Professor Behe described irreducible complexity as: A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

In illustrating his point, Behe used the idea of a simple mousetrap — with its base and spring and holding bar — as an example of an IC system, where the removal of any of these parts would render the mousetrap incapable of its intended purpose of trapping a mouse. Further, he provided examples of biological IC systems; each one dependent on several distinct parts in order to accomplish its task. Behe’s point in all this was that ALL the parts of the mouse trap are simultaneously necessary in order for a mousetrap to trap mice. And in a biological sense, if critical functions require several parts, then those functions would not occur until the various parts became available.  Read More

 

Comments
Hi CJYMan,
Question for you … So, according to SETI researchers, SETI has never been a search for ‘life as we know it’ with the capacity for at least a certain level of ‘intelligence?’
Yes, that is what SETI searches for - life as we know it, with intelligence as we know it.
If SETI is indeed looking for a certain level of intelligence … similar to the expressions of ‘intelligence as we know it,’ then that is exactly where the intersection lies between SETI and the ID argument from biosemiosis.
I don't understand what you mean. SETI posits living organisms like us as the cause of a signal (if they ever get one); ID says absolutely nothing about what it is proposing as the cause of cellular machinery.
It matters not where in space or time the signal begins, the signal points at the very least to some aspects of ‘intelligence as we know it.’
That would be the conjecture, yes, because "life as we know it" has "intelligence as we know it". Obviously that conjecture doesn't hold for something we know nothing about.
Serious?!?!? The answer: Humans use these abilities associated with the concept of intelligence to produce semiotic systems (automated systems) and semiotic patterns (books).
Serious?!?!?!? Just because humans are conscious, linguistic, etc. and they produce semiotic systems doesn't mean that something else that makes similar systems that is very different from a human being is going to share those same attributes! Humans use conscious thoughts (and knowledge of electrical engineering) to produce high-voltage electric arcs. Thunderclouds, however, produce high-voltage electric arcs without conscious thought or EE knowledge. Humans play chess by consciously thinking about moves; computers play chess (better than any human) without any conscious thought. Humans use conscious thought to solve search and tree optimization problems. Slime mold solves the same problems without any conscious thought. And so on, and so on. It's just a simple logical fallacy, really: Premise 1) X PRODUCES Y Premise 2) X HAS ATTRIBUTES A,B,C Premise 3) Z PRODUCES Y Conclusion) THEREFORE Z HAS ATTRIBUTES A,B,C (WRONG)
I don’t really see why you had to ask that question in the first place. What was the point anyway?
What question?
BTW, there is a difference between consciousness and intelligence, but I think that UprightBiped has already pointed that out.
Hahahaha - yes, I know. I am pointing out here that people generally associate consciousness with intelligence, so when ID claims to have supported the notion that something "intelligent" was responsible for cellular machinery, people believe that means some conscious, rational being (these are actually the words Stephen Meyer uses!) is implied. But as Dembski, Barry A, and now UB have all finally admitted, there is no reason at all to assume that the cause of cellular machinery was capable of conscious thought. This is one of my basic objections to ID.
Consciousness is not an ‘ability’ pointing to any sort of intelligence.
Yes, very good, you are quite right. There is nothing in our understanding of human mentality that says consciousness is required for any particular mental ability. Nor can we say that any particular mental ability must co-occur with other mental abilities; they just happen to in human beings. That is why when ID proposes something that produces semiotic systems, but that something is likely very different from a human being, we have no justification for assuming it has the same array of mental abilities as humans do. In fact, we can't legitimately conclude that it would have any particular attribute or trait - except the bare ability to produce what we observe of course.
That arbitrary classification is a distinction without significance. It has absolutely no application to the thread that actually is common between SETI and the ID argument from biosemiosis. I might be mistaken, but didn’t UprightBiped already go over all this with you?
UB bases his argument on an analogy with SETI. I've shown that his analogy with SETI fails for two reasons. First, SETI assumes that the sender of the signal is "life as we know it", which is the basis for hypothesizing the sender may be similar in various ways to us (including having complex bodies with "high encephalization quotients", which is how SETI says "big brains"). Second, SETI looks for signals that are not known to be caused by anything except living things like us. But the signal found in cells was obviously not produced by anything living like us. UB has too much invested in his paper on semiotics (30 years of research?) to allow himself to understand this, but the truth is the existence of irreducible complexity in biology is old news, and simply tells us nothing about what produced biological systems. All it does is tells us what did not produce biological systems. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
RDFish:
All you have in response is to ignore what SETI researchers say about what they looking for, and pretend that ID is still analogous.
Question for you ... So, according to SETI researchers, SETI has never been a search for ‘life as we know it’ with the capacity for at least a certain level of ‘intelligence?' If SETI is indeed looking for a certain level of intelligence ... similar to the expressions of 'intelligence as we know it,' then that is exactly where the intersection lies between SETI and the ID argument from biosemiosis. It matters not where in space or time the signal begins, the signal points at the very least to some aspects of 'intelligence as we know it.' RDFish:
So, what is your justification for all these inferences about the cause of living things? How can you justify your inference to consciousness, general linguistic abilities, novel problem solving abilities, and all of the other abilities associated with the concept of “intelligence”?
Serious?!?!? The answer: Humans use these abilities associated with the concept of intelligence to produce semiotic systems (automated systems) and semiotic patterns (books). I don't really see why you had to ask that question in the first place. What was the point anyway? BTW, there is a difference between consciousness and intelligence, but I think that UprightBiped has already pointed that out. Consciousness is not an 'ability' pointing to any sort of intelligence. RDFish:
Oh, and you dodged the point about SETI seeking signals not found in nature, while your signals are found in nature.
That arbitrary classification is a distinction without significance. It has absolutely no application to the thread that actually is common between SETI and the ID argument from biosemiosis. I might be mistaken, but didn't UprightBiped already go over all this with you? Having already explained myself on the 'reification' issue, I repeat the key point as a restatement of RDFish's defense of SETI methodology. We are a civilization of “Intelligence” - having the capacity for intelligent behavior. We build semiotic systems to be distinguishable from “natural chemical reactions,” and if we lived on some other planet and/or at some other time, we would do the same thing there. So, we look for “intelligence” with at least some characteristics like us that lived before us by looking for semiotic systems that would predate us. Get it?CJYman
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Shut up RDFish- SETI picked narrow-band transmissions because they are ARTIFICIAL, meaning nature cannot produce them. You have just conceded that you are a willfully ignorant troll with zero credibility. But we know tat you don't care. Cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
You’re going to need some more insults RD.
No, I'm pretty happy with the ones I have, thanks.
You’ve been forced to admit that the assumptions of the researcher are irrelevant to the physical process of detecting intelligence.
No, I haven't been forced to admit anything, sorry. I simply explained to you why SETI researchers pick narrow-band transmissions - because they are looking for "life as we know it", and we know from our own experience that "life as we know it" transmits narrow-beam signals.
Yet you maintain it is the sheer act of making the assumptions that gives the project “meaning”.
Their thinking is pretty easy to understand, really, and based on assumptions, yes: Since life evolved here on Earth, and because there are so many other planets in the universe, there are probably plenty of other planets where life could have evolved. This is an assumption. And, since our civilizations have invented technology, other civilizations probably would have invented technology too, given enough time - another assumption. So, they look for signs of these other civilizations by looking for the sort of technology we use - narrow-band EM signals. Seriously, has nobody ever explained this to you?
This is, of course, spectacularly incoherent, and wouldn’t get past either the scientist or philosopher you think you are.
Huh? It makes perfect sense to me, and to everyone else I've ever talked to about this. And you can read all about it on the SETI website! Really - that's exactly what the SETI folks think. It's all about astrobiology, life as we know it, and extra-terrestrial life forms.
And certainly in my 30+ years of doing research, your level of incoherence would have sent you packing every time.
I hope you didn't spend all that time on this stuff about semiotics! I guess you're just going to keep dodging and dodging here. You know you've lost, UB. Here it is again: You’ve just conceded that you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms in living cells, even though you use words that most people interpret to imply conscious thought (“intelligence” and “design”). So you’ve already conceded a big part of my argument; we just have a little ways to go. Just admit that not only have you no justification to infer conscious thought as the source of living things, but you likewise have no justification to infer the other attributes normally associated with human intelligence, such as the ability to learn new skills, solve novel problems in math and logic, read and write in a natural (general-purpose) language, and so on. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Hi RDFish:
Proteins exist in living cells, which are not the result of human action – i.e. they are natural.
Question-begging. There isn't any evidence that nature produced life let alone the proteins tat life requires and uses. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
You're going to need some more insults RD. You've been forced to admit that the assumptions of the researcher are irrelevant to the physical process of detecting intelligence. Yet you maintain it is the sheer act of making the assumptions that gives the project “meaning”. This is, of course, spectacularly incoherent, and wouldn't get past either the scientist or philosopher you think you are. And certainly in my 30+ years of doing research, your level of incoherence would have sent you packing every time. In any case, it’s a desperate business being forced into taking the such stupid positions, and then have to pretend that you're on top of your game, as if everyone is asleep. The grand equivocation you're trying to cook up has gone kaput long ago. At this point, you are all in, and all you have left is your dissociative pathology and a surprising willingness to ignore empirical evidence. Lay on it thick, Skippy. Let us see if we can get you into full meltdown once again.Upright BiPed
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
CJYmon: However I’ll agree with you, for the purposes of classification, that everything made by humans is artificial. Everything else is natural. Life is artifact-making. Proteins are artifacts. There is nothing "natural" about proteins. Sorry Mr. Fishy.Mung
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Hi EugeneS,
Whatever definition you use, you should be consistent. That is why I said your logic was flawed. If you don’t see that your logic is flawed, it is an error. If you deliberately use flawed logic, it is intellectual dishonesty.
I told you which definition I was using - a dictionary definition of the word "natural" which means "not artificial; not involving human action". There is no inconsistency, nor flaw in my logic, nor dishonesty of any kind. You are apparently confused about something.
Narrow band signals do exist in nature.
Not that we know of, no. The only narrow band signals SETI is aware of are those produced by human beings, which are - by definition - artificial rather than natural.
Evidence suggests they exist only by design.
After all of this, you don't realize that the meaning of this word "design" is what is at issue here? Does "design" entail conscious thought? General problem solving abilities? Use of general-purpose language? I'm very clear about the definitions I'm using - you need to be as well, or else we'll just spin our wheels here. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
RDFish, No. You can't get away with it like that. Whatever definition you use, you should be consistent. That is why I said your logic was flawed. If one doesn't see that their logic is flawed, it is an error. If one deliberately uses flawed logic, it is intellectual dishonesty. Narrow band signals do exist in nature. Evidence suggests they exist only by design. By the same reasoning, symbolic constraints also exist in nature; to the best of our current knowledge, only in living systems, on multiple levels of their organization, and in complex human-designed systems. All symbolic constraints whose origin we know exist by design. Therefore we have reason to believe that the first living systems must have been designed. The validity of this inference is, of course, based on empirical evidence. As soon as it is empirically demonstrated that living systems can arise naturalistically, i.e. exclusively due to the laws of nature and chance (peculiar initial conditions) without intelligent guidance of some form, e.g. without recourse to control of the chemical synthesis of life, this inference is no longer valid.EugeneS
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: I can assure you that none of them has a “life as we know it” button, or dial, or light. SETI makes it clear that they are extrapolating from what we know of humans; evolved organisms "living at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball" that use artificial narrow-band emissions as a form of communications. Hence, SETI is looking for narrow-band radio waves emitted from other star systems, particularly star systems of types F5 through K5, which are thought to be stable enough for long enough periods of time for life to evolve into complex forms. Now that the technology is available, they are particularly interested in planets that may have liquid water. Interesting tidbit: "Life as we know it" shows up on SETI's website 185 times. https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22life+as+we+know+it%22+site%3Aseti.orgZachriel
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
I’ve spent a good number of years inside buildings with large scale broadcast equipment. There are large rooms with racks and racks of equipment. Among those are signal analyzers and frequency counters that will give you the exact characteristics of the signal being processed. I can assure you that none of them has a “life as we know it” button, or dial, or light.
Ah, this goes some distance in explaining why your background has not prepared you for these discussions. Scientists and philosophers understand these things. Here is your confusion: You are thinking that SETI believes something inherent in the signal indicates "life as we know it". What we're trying to say is different: SETI researchers assume that they are looking for "life as we know it" - that is how they describe what they are looking for. They may say "technologically advanced civilizations" or "intelligent life forms" or other terms, but their literature - including their research in astrobiology - makes clear that they are looking for living organisms that need liquid water, a temperate environment, have had sufficient time to evolve large "encephalization quotients" (basically what they call brain size), and so on. With these assumptions in hand, they go looking for some sign of these civilizations of living things. They reason that since we use narrow-band signals to communicate, so might other civilizations of living things. That is why they look for narrow-band signals, and why they would think that detecting them would be evidence of civilizations of intelligent life forms. OK, now that we're done talking about SETI and extra-terrestrial life forms, can we get back to the question you answered part of, but are afraid to answer the rest of? Here, repeated for your convenience: You’ve just conceded that you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms in living cells, even though you use words that most people interpret to imply conscious thought (“intelligence” and “design”). So you’ve already conceded a big part of my argument; we just have a little ways to go. Just admit that not only have you no justification to infer conscious thought as the source of living things, but you likewise have no justification to infer the other attributes normally associated with human intelligence, such as the ability to learn new skills, solve novel problems in math and logic, read and write in a natural (general-purpose) language, and so on. Remember, no dodging! :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
UB: They do not test for “life as we know it”. Zach: Actually, that’s exactly what they do.
What is it with you two? Have a little discipline. I've spent a good number of years inside buildings with large scale broadcast equipment. There are large rooms with racks and racks of equipment. Among those are signal analyzers and frequency counters that will give you the exact characteristics of the signal being processed. I can assure you that none of them has a "life as we know it" button, or dial, or light. Is it just beyond you to separate the thinking/assumptions/preferences/goals of the researcher from the actual test that he/she is able to physically conduct?Upright BiPed
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Hi CJYMan,
Your distinction between that which exists in nature and that which does not exist in nature is still laughable.
How so? I'm using a dictionary definition for "natural" - what other definition would you like to use?
However I’ll agree with you, for the purposes of classification, that everything made by humans is artificial. Everything else is natural.
Then we're back to the definition I was using, which is just fine.
I have, for as long as I remember … and you and I have danced around this issue before … always treated ‘intelligence’ as a specific ability.
Psychologists, cognitive scientists, and AI researchers treat "intelligence" as some collection of specific abilities, usually including things like memory, learning, novel problem solving, use of natural language, and so on. What underlies these different abilities in humans is for the most part unknown (although neuroscience does understand some of the basic mechanisms).
With that understanding in place, it appears that your belief is that we can never, under any circumstance, argue for the existence or capacity of an ability no matter how well defined.
Sorry, what? We test for these abilities in human beings, for example. There are many different characteristics of these testable abilities, but once you pick one, you can obviously test for them. You cannot, however, give an IQ test in the context of ID theory. People (like UB) believe that we can assume that anything that gives rise to complex machinery - like we see in biological cells - must have these other attributes as well. This assumption may have validity if and only if other assumptions are made along with it, in particular that we are talking about "life as we know it".
As such, SETI has never been a search for ‘life as we know it’ with the capacity for at least a certain level of ‘intelligence.’ Is that your position?
My position is that whatever caused life to exist was obviously nothing like "life as we know it", so we have absolutely nothing whatsoever upon which to base assumptions regarding general human-like mental abilities. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
RDFish, Your distinction between that which exists in nature and that which does not exist in nature is still laughable. However I'll agree with you, for the purposes of classification, that everything made by humans is artificial. Everything else is natural. Now, moving back to your charge of 'reification,' I understand how it could appear as if I'm arguing for intelligence as a concrete thing. But I assure you that is in no way my intent. I have, for as long as I remember ... and you and I have danced around this issue before ... always treated 'intelligence' as a specific ability. With that understanding in place, it appears that your belief is that we can never, under any circumstance, argue for the existence or capacity of an ability no matter how well defined. As such, SETI has never been a search for 'life as we know it' with the capacity for at least a certain level of 'intelligence.' Is that your position?CJYman
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Hi EugeneS,
Narrow band signals also exist in nature
Well no, as far as we know they don't, which is why SETI looks for them. (I'm using the common definition of "nature", which is "not artificial; not caused by human action").
However, proteins have not been shown to arise naturalistically. Not yet, at least.
Proteins exist in living cells, which are not the result of human action - i.e. they are natural. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
RDF, "But proteins do exist in nature." Your logic is flawed. Narrow band signals also exist in nature and we know that intelligent beings can produce them and, what's more, evidence suggests it's highly likely that only intelligent beings can. However, proteins have not been shown to arise naturalistically. Not yet, at least. Why are you assuming things about IQ and other characteristics that cannot be assumed given the evidence? The answer is, you want to safeguard yourself from intellectual defeat. Is that fair?EugeneS
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Humans use narrow-band emissions for communications, so they suppose that other organisms evolving on watery planets around other stars would do likewise.
The more important aspect is that nature does not and cannot produce narrow-band emissions. If she could then we wouldn't be able to use them to detect ET. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish:
Just admit that not only have you no justification to infer conscious thought as the source of living things,
That would be a lie. It is clear that planning went into this universe and living organisms and planning only comes from conscious thought. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish:
Regarding looking for signals not found in nature, SETI looks for narrow-band transmissions because there are no other known sources of such signals in nature
Semiotic systems are also such an example. It is amazing that you cannot see the link. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: They do not test for “life as we know it”. Actually, that's exactly what they do. Humans use narrow-band emissions for communications, so they suppose that other organisms evolving on watery planets around other stars would do likewise.Zachriel
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
They do not test for “life as we know it”. That is an assumption MADE AFTER the detection of intelligence.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but SETI has never detected such a signal! And yes, they make all of these assumptions about "life as we know" in order to direct their search and estimate the odds that other life forms have evolved on other planets. Just read their literature, and you'll see. Now, you are still dodging the rest of the argument here: You've just conceded that you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms in the living cells, even though you use words that most people interpret to imply conscious thought ("intelligence" and "design"). So you've already conceded a big part of my argument; we just have a little ways to go. Just admit that not only have you no justification to infer conscious thought as the source of living things, but you likewise have no justification to infer the other attributes normally associated with human intelligence, such as the ability to learn new skills, solve novel problems in math and logic, read and write in a natural (general-purpose) language, and so on. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
I know of no such characteristic; SETI makes assumptions
Yes. They do not test for "life as we know it". That is an assumption MADE AFTER the detection of intelligence. The assumption is not a part of that process, rightly so, and does not alter the result. Your counter-arguments just crashed. No one expects you to acknowldge this fact. Particularly not me.Upright BiPed
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
You failed to identify any characteristic of a narrow-band radio signal that establishes “life as we know it” from the alternative “life as we didn’t know it”.
That's not what you asked. And I know of no such characteristic; SETI makes assumptions about what it is looking for based on "life as we know it" (it's all through their literature) because, well, that is what we know about! That is why they hire astrobiologists, and not science-fiction writers.
RDF: Oh, and you dodged the point about SETI seeking signals not found in nature, while your signals are found in nature. UB: You’ve adopted a standard that invalidates SETI on the very day of it success. Good job.
You are not even trying. SETI looks for signals that are not produced, to our knowledge, by anything in nature (by "nature" I mean "not by human action"). ID looks for signals that are produced naturally - in biology. This doesn't invalidate SETI's approach, but it does mean that SETI is not analogous to ID.
RDF: How can you justify your inference to consciousness... UB: My site models a semiotic system, and describes how such systems can be identified. Consciousness is not part of either the model or the process of identification.
VERY GOOD START, but you dodged the rest of the question. Here is the question I asked: How can you justify your inference to consciousness, general linguistic abilities, novel problem solving abilities, and all of the other abilities associated with the concept of “intelligence”? Just answer the full question like you answered the part about consciousness, and we'll be done! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Hi CJYMan,
RDFish, how are you not seeing the inconsistency in your application of logic?
Because I only see what is there, of course :-)
We are a civilization of “Intelligence”...
That is making the error of reification. "Intelligence" is not a thing - it is a property of living things. We are not "intelligence" - we are human beings, with many characteristics, including mobility, resourcefulness, agility, thermoregulation, digestion of food, intelligence, and so on. Regarding looking for signals not found in nature, SETI looks for narrow-band transmissions because there are no other known sources of such signals in nature (that is, that are not produced by human beings). I have no idea why you would find that funny, but glad you get a kick out of it! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Proteins are found "in nature" but narrow band radio signals are not. whee! Proteins must be designed.Mung
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
I really liked the claim that designed radios are specifically designed to not use natural radio waves. The implications for the RDFish position boggle the mind.Mung
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
This is hilarious. ETA: start hereMung
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
UB: Now you get to tell me how they detect “life as we know it” from a narrow-band radio wave. If your argument is coherent, then the radio wave must present some identifiable characteristic that establishes the variable “life as we know it”, and has the capacity to overturn any other positive result. RD: ...we look for civilizations of beings like us that live on other planets by looking for narrow-band radio waves. Get it?
You failed to identify any characteristic of a narrow-band radio signal that establishes “life as we know it” from the alternative “life as we didn't know it”. The signal itself only establishes the existence of a transmitter. As I have pointed out to you, either these additional elements are an actual part of the process, or they are tacked-on assumptions that have no bearing in generating the result.
Oh, and you dodged the point about SETI seeking signals not found in nature, while your signals are found in nature.
You’ve adopted a standard that invalidates SETI on the very day of it success. Good job.
How can you justify your inference to consciousness
My site models a semiotic system, and describes how such systems can be identified. Consciousness is not part of either the model or the process of identification.Upright BiPed
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
If a narrow-band emission is detected, that would just be the start of the inquiry.
No, the start of the inquiry was "is anyone else out there and how can we find out?" and then doing it. Once a signal is found then the inquiry into the origin of that signal begins.
Any claim of intelligence associated with the signal would be met with intense scrutiny.
All science should be met with intense scrutiny. Science without intense scrutiny is dogma. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: If the reception of a narrow-band signal is validated, the results of the test will be accepted (as is) across the whole of science. The test is based on "what would highly evolved organisms 'living at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball' do?" If a narrow-band emission is detected, that would just be the start of the inquiry. Any claim of intelligence associated with the signal would be met with intense scrutiny.Zachriel
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 11

Leave a Reply