Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: codes, design, creation, intelligence
Message-ID: <88@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 22:49:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.88
Posted: Wed Jul 17 22:49:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 17:58:56 EDT
References: <1270@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 67

In 1270@uwmacc, A. Ray Miller says various things which might be
construed to support the traditional argument from design.  It turns out
that it does nothing of the kind, and in fact undermines it (as usual).
Of particular interest was the analogy to SETI, and it is here that I
have a few comments to add.

> P.S.  I'll put the shoe on the other foot now:  Would some evolutionist on the
> net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize
> created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on
> earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes?  Well?????
>
> A. Ray Miller
> Univ Illinois

This is a particularly easy "challenge".  All you have to do is be
minimally aware of what SETI is looking for.  They are looking for
messages that the sender intends to be found.  The patterns that are
being looked for are the patterns *we ourselves* would send if we were
sending a message to the universe at large.  Thus, SETI (as far as I
know) makes no claim to being able to unambiguously detect "design",
since (as far as I know) this isn't possible in general.

In particular, a message that has the highest information content most
closely resembles noise.  A message that is highly recognizable as a
message will have redundancy built in, and minimal "framing
assumptions", so that it will be noticable in the largest possble set of
contexts.

There are two key concepts here.  The first is that SETI is looking for
patterns that can contain information.  As pointed out in the posting,
this is not a guarantee of artifical or intensional origins, as the
example of the Pulsars with the "LGM" hypothesis warns us.

The second is that we are looking for messages of a form that *we might
send ourselves*.  That is, we can recognize a message that has the form
of a message we might send, but will have trouble recognizing a message
in a format with which we are unfamiliar.  Thus, we are guessing at what
formats hypothetical ETIs will use, based on our own experience with
messages.

The second point has an obvious and strong analogy to the discussions
about "argument from design".  We can recognize *design* if and only if
we could (in principle) do the design ourselves.  We can recognize
*patterns* even when we could or would not have designed things with
these patterns.  The argument from design normally confuses these two
things, pattern and design.

To recognize design, the *method of design* must be known to the finder.
Thus, it is easy to recognize design in a sandcastle, since we know how
it was built, and can see the evidence of shaping using techniques we
know or can imagine.  We can see design in a painting, since we
recognize the paint, and (an expert) can see the technique reflected in
the brush strokes.  We can see design in a watch or in an airplane and
on and on, because we know how they are made.

In order to unambiguously see design in life, we would have to be able
to make it ourselves.  (I was refering to this point when I asked
recently for the "mechanism of creation" of life, rather than just a
bald statement that it was indeed created.)

Now, saying that patterns don't imply design, I'd have to say that
patterns don't imply a natural explaination either.  However, when an
explaination of perceived patterns is available, and competing
explainations explain the pattern less convincingly, *then* the patterns
can be construed as "evidence" for the most convincing explaination.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw