Discussion on how do we spot 'Intelligent Design' or civilisation evidence?

As Eriktheawful said

How in the world are we going to look for present martian life that is completely alien to Earth and based on something else using only a camera on a rover? You can't say that it MUST be because it LOOKS like something. Other requirements must be met, else it is simply just speculation.

Well, since we cannot definitely say there is life on Mars without the backing of NASA scientific data, we have to look for other signs which point us in the direction of ET life. Maybe in the end, there will be overwhelming circumstancial evidence to get more people to believe that ET life exists in these images of foreign worlds.

I admit, there are many rocks which look like intelligent design (ID) with shapes such as squares, hexagonals (Devils Causeway), rounds and sphericals as well as flat and domed rocks too.

However, I feel that a PATTERN is more likely to show ID and evidence for civilisation than a natural formation. Particularly if, for example, it is a pattern of crater-looking shapes with an equal distance between them, or posibly a more complex shape or structure such as circle within a square or a pillar in a cleared circular area. These more complex shapes may give us further reasons to believe there is ET intelligent life on these far off places.

Please do NOT keep posting hundreds of the same old pictures of rock or crystals which look like they have been created by intelligences. We have seen so many of those images of Devils Causeway or wind-weathered shapes.

Many people have posted rocks which look like ID, but this discussion is about whether there can be any visual clues to intelligent design and evidence for civilisation. I think there can, but how do you feel?

reply to post by qmantoo


Well the words you quoted for me are actually about some form of actual alien life....not alien architecture.

Engineering be it what we have done or what aliens might do could possibly still have the same basic roots:

If the aliens are bipedal, chances are they would still make stairs like us (all though the riser and tread parts might be a lot smaller or a lot bigger).

Columns or support beams placed at equal distances would be hard to say "that's completely natural" The floor foundation might be, but even just the remains of support column foundations fixed at set distances in a patter would be very hard to say that they are natural rock formations.

A round rock, like the cross section of a cylinder, with a hole, or several holes in it spaced evenly apart would also be a dead giveaway that it was engineered and not something natural.

One could say: aliens on Mars are so completely different from us, that even their engineering needs would be something that we could not understand or recognize.

But if that is the case......again, pictures from the rovers wouldn't help us. If it's too alien for us to understand, then we could point to each and every single rock in any photograph and say it's alien building rubble.

And that's my argument: if people insist that things are there, but we just can't recognize them because they are "too" alien for us to understand (be it life, or architecture), then what is the point of even bothering to look at the pictures?
You see something that looks strange to you (but might not look strange to say a geologist), does not automatically make it alien life or architecture. It IS extraterrestrial however, since it's on Mars and not on Earth (tongue in cheek joke there).

But let us say there was a alien statue, and it's been smashed to pieces. Could be that the pieces look only like strangely shaped rock (some statues are carved from rock). The problem with a picture is: if it's smashed enough, we won't see that they go together to form something.

Now, if someone was there looking, they might notice that two "rocks" close to each other seem to fit together. Not impossible with geology of course. But then they find a third.....and a fourth piece, and so on, and as they start putting it together, it becomes obvious that it was something made by intelligence and not by nature.

That would be a case of what I said: the pictures may not be enough. Other things may have to be done (in this case a person finding and putting pieces back together).

reply to post by qmantoo

Surprised this didn't garner more attention. I was hoping for some intelligent stabs at what could be clues of visitation. I have about a hundred.

But one I never brought before...

is Miranda:


Its a moon that resembles no other. It looks "furrowed" if you will. Great gobs of this moon of Uranus are in fact apparently missing. As if a giant excavator has come along and gouged up and ingested huge quantities of its surface for... what you ask?

If interstellar travel by great ships was a reality, if sentient beings travel from system to system seeding planets (like earth) with life, they would of course require enormous amounts of energy which could (theoretically ) be "mined" from space bodies they encounter that suit their needs for fuel, water, breathable gasses, minerals, etc.

The ships are huge and the passengers many so giant excavators would roam over surfaces of suitable moons far enough outside the suns gravity well. Sort of like a carrier parking off the coast of a country and sending in its aircraft.

Miranda looks like one of these "mined" planets. Scientists propose that the moon broke apart and reassembled itaself a long time ago but the upper right quarter is old cratered landscape and the "patches" or "scrapings" appear fresher. By millions of years or a few thousand, who knows?

Just a whimsy I been toying with.

reply to post by intrptr


Not to derail qmantoo's thread, but you suggest a very intriguing idea.

You should start a thread about it.

Oh, and your image is blocked for me for some reason (but yah, Miranda looks like a moon that had a very bad wreck).

Please do NOT keep posting hundreds of the same old pictures of rock or crystals which look like they have been created by intelligences. We have seen so many of those images of Devils Causeway or wind-weathered shapes.

Many people have posted rocks which look like ID, but this discussion is about whether there can be any visual clues to intelligent design and evidence for civilisation. I think there can, but how do you feel?

Good post! Great question.

While I do not see Intelligent Design in the Mars rocks, nor the phylogeny or evolutionary history of life on Earth, nor even in its DNA codons or expressive structures, nor the balance of physical laws which yield our natural realm, I do have a concern. Just because our conclusions are likely correct, does not mean that we have arrived at those conclusions via a process which is sound.

In math, when there are more variables to solve for, than there are independent equations to relate variables, the system is considered divergent and insolute.

However, when there exists a multiplicity of relational methods, and only a few variables to solve for, it is possible to get the right answer via the wrong method; and that is what concerns me. We think that because we got a couple answers right, that we need not examine our critical thinking habits. Like an undergraduate student who gets a couple A's early on and believes that his study habits, therefore, are sufficient, we can be fooled into being overconfident with HOW we arrive at our conclusions. Fascinated with the club and the jargon and apparent procedures.

Using skepticism as a tool is wise. Appointing professional skeptics to represent science is foolishness.

I fear that our methods of filtering data, policing thought, screening information, observation dismissal, public ridicule, denial, social pressure, dogma manufacturing, presumption that science starts and ends in a lab, assurance that since everyone thinks something, then it must be true, one-liner intimidation and arrogance - all are errant methodologies. Practices of the overconfident, used to attack those they do not like, and cultivating a growing sludge of ignorance which is fouling the engine of science. And we have become so very good at those things, that

... we would not know Intelligent Design if it fell out of the sky and sat and wiggled on our collective faces.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by intrptr

 

Not to derail qmantoo's thread, but you suggest a very intriguing idea.

You should start a thread about it.

Oh, and your image is blocked for me for some reason (but yah, Miranda looks like a moon that had a very bad wreck).

I am better at chiming in than hosting. I bring ideas and hope others run with it... Yah, some blocked my image. Heres another,

Erik,

Well the words you quoted for me are actually about some form of actual alien life....not alien architecture.

Unless I misunderstood you, alien architecture or design found on another planet IS a sign of intelligent ET life, just like I said in my first paragraph.

The Ethical Skeptic

Just because our conclusions are likely correct, does not mean that we have arrived at those conclusions via a process which is sound.

I totally agree, but what is the answer? There are many different pressures on science from peer pressure, to financing pressures, to credibility, and status. It is trying to make the system better, but there is a resistance to change from the position many have spent years getting comfortable in. I think most people would agree that there are humungous probabilities that alien life exists in the universe so, do we actually know that our conclusions are likely correct in any way?

Actually, our conclusions are only as good as the data we receive to draw those conclusions from. Now, if that science data is flawed or altered in any way at all, then those conclusions are null and void and really not worth the papers which are written based on that data. One paper often references others to give it weight, so one bad set of data would bring a cascade of collapse. There is huge mileage in keeping the Science house from falling around the necks of those who support it.

It is one thing for ET to visit here, since we know it takes some high intelligence to develop space travel. It is another thing completely to look for intelligent life on another planet because there is not that initial assumption of intelligence present. We are not going to know if this 'rock' we find on Mars is intelligent or not and we are not going to know the level of that intelligence like we would for a visitor to Earth. Basically, anything could be intelligence but just choosing not interacting with us.

If on the other hand, we can determine some pointers which recognise or signify some kind of organisation of living spaces or evidence of cultivation, etc then we can be fairly certain that there is some intelligence behind that.

If on the other hand, we can determine some pointers which recognise or signify some kind of organisation of living spaces or evidence of cultivation, etc then we can be fairly certain that there is some intelligence behind that.

Now, were there such a thing as an Intelligently Designed system in the Universe, and I think that there is one indeed somewhere, then you are right, there should be some principles with which we should prepare our minds before we look for such a thing.

The Ethical Skeptic's Girding for Finding Intelligence

1. If it is too good to be true, it probably ain't.

2. Obstacles of vast stellar distances, are an illusion.

3. The sophistication and depth of our knowledge, is a delusion.

4. Intelligence may exist in more than simply DNA fabricated media.

5. Design does not come in symmetrical circles, angles and straight lines.

6. Design is done in a vast universe to be effective, not pretty.

7. Design which is obvious and noisy, is obvious and noisy to both the good guys and the bad guys.

8. Design Always presumes there is a bad guy.

9. Design does not always occur on our scale and size.

10. Control strategies always fail and empires fail catastrophically and very visibly.

11. Design will always have a plan B.

12. Design hedges its bets.

13. 13 is always skipped.

14. Design follows rules which we do not grasp; and possibly could never understand.

15. All designs tell an enormous story about the designer.

16. Design will most likely conceal itself elegantly.

17. Design will almost ubiquitously avoid the use of stainless steel appliances.

18. Design is not afraid of clutter and dirt, rather loves the camouflage.

19. Design doesn't care what you think.

20. Design should be able to conduct its own field retrofits and maintenance without logistical support.

21. Design should eventually be able to design itself (Turing Replication).

22. The first priority of design, is design itself.

23. Design will be observed to never give up.

24. Design will try all possibilities.

25. Design is not a skeptic, rather a dreamer, and the eternal optimist.

26. The most effective design incorporates time as an ally, entropy as its impetus, and patience as a virtue.

27. Design would not be envious of other design.

28. Once successful, design would use such a trait over and over for expediency.

29. Conquering designs, eventually get conquered.

30. To be effective, design must not be able to recognize itself.

How do you successfully convince the public that evidence of 'intelligent design' or 'alien activity' has been spotted in some photo of extraterrestrial landscape.
-You convince the scientific community.


How do you convince the scientific community that a credible evidence of alien activity is found?
-With investigation resulting conclusion that is reviewed by scientific community and accepted as valid.


Does that mean you can only look for evidence that can be identified and explained as 'intelligent design' or 'artificial origin' using current scientific knowledge?
-Yes.


Aren't you leaving out things that could actually be 'intelligent design' or 'alien' activity but just too advanced or wacky to be identifiable using our current level of scientific knowledge?
-Yes.


Why?
See the first question/answer.


My 2c on just what it might take for something to be accepted as evidence of 'aliens'.

How do you successfully convince the public that evidence of 'intelligent design' or 'alien activity' has been spotted in some photo of extraterrestrial landscape.
-You convince the scientific community.

How do you convince the scientific community that a credible evidence of alien activity is found?
-With investigation resulting conclusion that is reviewed by scientific community and accepted as valid.

I really get so sick and tired of superior scientists playing the king. Like they know it all and they say what is 'acceptable' and what is not. What is 'valid' and what is not. If it does not fit the repeatability model, then it is just not valid science because they have to have data to back it up. Guess what? Aliens, ghosts, demons, abductions, dont exist and are all figments of our mind. I call BS. We need to seriously consider who we call 'experts' and who we allow as the 'authority' on any of these subjects.

Well, surprise, surprise, some things cannot yet be measured and as far as science goes, they dont exist. We dont care that hundreds of people have experienced something, but if it cannot be measured or repeated, then it is not valid as far as science is concerned. That just about sums it all up.

We should not have to 'convince' anyone. If scientists were doing their job and were truly open to new hypotheses, then they themselves would be doing the investigating into unexplained phenomena and we would be far further along the road than we are now.

Science is not perfect by any means but even if you don't consider the fact public generally accepts scientific findings without calling it BS (for good reason) is there any other system out there that would even come close in its ability to establish some new finding or discovery as accepted fact most likely truth to as many people as possible without every joe ats trying to debunk it? Please tell me if you find one lol

reply to post by qmantoo



I'm sorry that you are "sick and tired" of "scientist playing king".

Would you rather we go back a few hundred years and have the Church decide everything? Back when, suggesting new ideas could be considered blasphemy?

Or do we adopt a new system where by anything that anyone announces MUST be accepted as "fact"?

If we did that, how would we get anything done? How would we know what was right and what was wrong?

Let us say I want to design a electronic circuit that does something. In order to design that circuit, I have to follow certain scientific laws about electricity. The reason I have to follow those laws is because without them, I can't determine things that I need to know in order to design that circuit.
I need to know how much current will flow in part of the circuit. I might need to know the capacitance reactence in another area of the circuit. I need to know what the biasing voltage needs to be for a certain component. A component that was made because the manufacture also used certain scientific laws in order to build it.

Without that information I would be just throwing something together, guessing and hoping that it either works, or blows up in my face.

We want to put a satellite up in orbit. We can either use the information that scientist figured out about orbital mechanics........or we could just make it up as we go along, and hope that the multi million dollar satellite actually makes it into orbit....or will it come crashing back down to earth? Or will it fling itself out into space?

You want to know who is hardest on scientist? Other scientists. Not your average Joe on the street.

If you are sick and tired of how science works.........then find something else. Science, by working the way it has in the last two centuries is the reason you're able to make the posts you make on this forum. It's why you have a way to keep food frozen. Why you can have a microwave oven. Why you can fly in a plane. Why you can use a phone. Why you can do and have many of the things you have.

It is not science which is the problem. Science is a fantastic enhancement which is hopefully, freeing mankind in so many ways.

We make a mistake here when we attack science as a dogmatic institution yes; but moreover, when we as well pretend to know what science thinks on specific ephemeral issues, this is an even more destructive and deceptive action.

First science does not have an opinion on topics which cannot be repeatably observed and measured. It does not claim that they do not exist - it simply is mute on the issue. It is the pretenders, those who purport to represent science, who abuse the discernment and extrapolate valid science into conflations with their personal religions, fears and ontology; all of which they would like to arrogantly force onto the public, in the name of science.

When one says for instance, "There is no such thing as ___________. Science demands evidence." They have pulled a sleight-of-hand. By implying:

1. Science has investigated this topic, and an empty set of evidence has been established as conclusion (False)
2. Science therefore, has an opinion on this topic (False)
3. The claimant represents the authority and opinion of science (False)
4. Science backs up the claimant's personal ontology. (False)

All of these implied claims are a deception which is practiced by less than scrupulous outsiders who wear the costume of science like a priest wears holy robes and hopes you will think that he represents god.

Science demands evidence, yes.

1. But it will not look for evidence until it is allowed
2. It has no opinion on topics where research has not been conducted
3. The claimant does not represent science
4. Nor does science back the claimant's personal religion.

So, I have no idea if there is any such thing as ____________. And until science is freed up to research _________, and no longer blocked by pretenders, any claims to the contrary constitute simply a personal agenda.

I'm sorry that you are "sick and tired" of "scientist playing king".
Would you rather we go back a few hundred years and have the Church decide everything? Back when, suggesting new ideas could be considered blasphemy?

I do see the benefits which science has given us, however it was the attitude which I was not happy with. I think you know that but just decided to misread what I said.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
First science does not have an opinion on topics which cannot be repeatably observed and measured. It does not claim that they do not exist - it simply is mute on the issue. It is the pretenders, those who purport to represent science, who abuse the discernment and extrapolate valid science into conflations with their personal religions, fears and ontology; all of which they would like to arrogantly force onto the public, in the name of science.

Science is NOT mute on topics that cannot be repeatably observed and measured. There are hypothetical models describing the primordial development of life on Earth, with little experimentation done. You cannot repeatedly observe and measure the Big Bang, for another example. Science is a method of investigation - a method that prohibits to build a theory which would be based on a mere speculation. In other words, building house of cards is not the goal of science, but an educated guess is not completely "against the law," if it is presented as such. That's why when ET life is mentioned, the scientists mean a very primitive molecular life, because they are not equipped to research something that could be incredibly superior to human mind. If there are members of an advanced ET civilization in our solar system with the task to study Homo sapiens, and they obviously wish not to be detected by us, SETI is not going to detect them - not even with the help of God.

I thought that those folks who compare the shape of various minerals from NASA photos have learned something from the "Face on Mars" fiasco. Apparently it is not the case.

That's why when ET life is mentioned, the scientists mean a very primitive molecular life, because they are not equipped to research something that could be incredibly superior to human mind.

and God help us when and if they come knocking at our door. We will be completely unprepared. We cannot even conceive of ET so unlike us they could have no emotions and look like a rock or maybe a Transformer.

At least I would have thought that someone would have worked out a way to start a conversation with an ET. Maybe they have, but not having a model for determining ET life is a bit of a giveaway that really not much preparation has been done. Do we just assume that ET will be so superior they will be the one who makes the contact and so makes communication with us possible?

What would happen if we got to Mars and found ET but less developed than us, but still sentient and intelligent. We would have to be the ones who initiated the conversations with them and we have no clue how to do that. Or.. if we have it will take years of research to 'train' them to be able to talk our language and then it would be English of course.

Originally posted by qmantoo

At least I would have thought that someone would have worked out a way to start a conversation with an ET. Maybe they have, but not having a model for determining ET life is a bit of a giveaway that really not much preparation has been done. Do we just assume that ET will be so superior they will be the one who makes the contact and so makes communication with us possible?

There may be somewhere civilizations out there very similar to us, but there is no way of communicating with them, like two way traffic, because of the cosmic distances. It takes hundreds of thousand years for the radio signal to reach various destinations in our neighborhood. We started to use electromagnetic waves as information carriers (radio, TV) only recently, so no one out there like us is receiving steady signals, which would be positively identified as man-made. There maybe a chance that after a few million years, our EMR would be received and studied by ET radio astronomers. So if they send a signal back, like "gee we thought we were alone in the universe," it would take another few million years for that signal to reach us. But by that time, there maybe no radio telescopes here or anything else for that matter.

If there is someone intelligent around, it has to be something behind our wildest imagination. I don't think something like that would have any desire to communicate, the same way we don't have much of a desire to communicate with squirrels. But this is not exactly the same comparison. There is a good chance that those hypothetical super-super advanced ET's would push buttons here and there leaving us wondering whether some of the ghost stories are real or not. (It wouldn't take much for the ETs to employ a super high-tech hologram showing deceased uncle Joe and then study our response wrapped in primitive rationalism.)

Tremex

...the same way we don't have much of a desire to communicate with squirrels. But this is not exactly the same comparison.

I was not really meaning about the communication BEFORE they get here, but the communication AFTER they get here. Yes, communicating with squirrels - that would be a start. To develop some way to find common ground. It would probably involve some kind of sign language to start with, but we need to develop a Universal communicator because currently we cannot even properly translate from on Earth language to another. When you are talking to another race which is potentially much more advanced than you are, you need to get it right othewise critical misunderstanding will arise. So communicating with monkeys might be a first step to prove the technology and then work up from there to Earth-based languages perhaps.

I do think that an outline of what we should look for on other worlds to indicate intelligen design should be available from scientists though. Otherwise, what are they looking for when looking for signs of life? Just chemicals I guess. Yes, thats safe.