Alien Radio

I gave an oral exam in my graduate theory seminar yesterday, which included a very simple question (that most of the class, shockingly, got wrong) asking students to figure out how many bits were required to represent a particular piece of information. At lunch today, I asked my wife (the law student) what the answer was, and she got it immediately, which got us talking about encoding information.

How is it that when you “zip” a file, it gets smaller? Assuming that you are smooshing something in such a way that you get back the exact original (lossless compression), you look for regularities, and represent them in some way that eats up less space. If, for example, I have ten spaces in a row, it takes up less room if I store “ten spaces” than if I try to store “space space space space space space space space space space.” In other words, although there may be an absolute minimum needed to transmit a certain amount of information, there are ways to compress regularities.

Those regularities may be inherent to the content of the message being sent. The “space” example is a good one. Spaces are encoded as a particular binary pattern, and if this pattern repeats ten times in a row, there is a way to represent this. The same can be said of blocks of color in an image, for example. Or, if you notice that the word “the” shows up a lot in English text — even if you have no idea of what “the” means — you might choose to give it its own code. This can be worked up to several levels.

But this hints at the second type of compression: compression that relies upon a history of communication. Rather than repeating everything you need to know, I can rely upon earlier information sharing, and say “what I said last week” or “let’s go to plan B.” Or, famously, I can just decide to hang up a single lantern or two, to show whether an attack is by land or sea. In this case, the world of possible messages is pretty much contained (no chance of an air attack), and so there really is just 1 bit of information (or, arguably, 1.58 bits) needed to transmit the message. One could imagine that after numbering all of the words in English, as well as some short phrases, it would be possible to compress English even further, due to redundancies and pattern regularities. On the assumption that we rarely say much that is new, we could even do word pairs or word triples, encoded by their probability of occurring, and easily store these on our large hard drives to reduce the size of communicated texts. This might begin to make sense if you are talking about storing, for example, the Library of Congress. Citation of earlier work is, in some strange sense, compression. So is a hyperlink. So are words.

When you remove internal regularities, to the greatest degree possible, the resulting output should contain no regularities at all. It should be random. After all, if there is a regularity, it is redundant. Now, there are very good reasons to be redundant. Redundancy allows you better chances to overcome a noisy channel. Although “F” is easier and quicker to say over a noisy radio than “foxtrot,” it is also much easier to confuse “F” with “S”, or even potentially “M”, “N”, or “X”. Computer communications often throw in a bit or two to make sure that everything “adds up” at the other end. Heck, even DNA may have error correcting codes. So, there may be an internal regularity that is added specifically to overcome noise.

Which brings us to SETI. Now, let me begin by saying that I have no idea what SETI really does, I have zero background in signal processing, and I am in this area (as in many) an ignoramus. That’s why I’m blogging about it! But I think that many people casually assume that SETI is aiming to “eavesdrop” on alien TV programs, Kang and Kodos style. SETI is pretty clear that’s not really what they are about. They are, instead, looking for an alien transmission that is intended for us, or other aliens like us.

So do we (or they) create a message that is the least random as possible? This would be a message that says little more than “we exist as an intelligent being.” What sort of a message might that be? Well, a really obvious one, because it is redundant, is something like “space space space space space” or maybe a binary equivalent of “11111111111”. Depending on what pattern you assign to that 1, it may be better to do something like “1010101010101010”. But the trick is, we aren’t sure what pattern they might generate. It could be just about anything. So we are forced to look for any redundant message.

Only, redundancy is in the eye of the beholder. Is the rotation of a star (on-off-on-off) an intelligent sort of thing? Well, no. It’s not complex enough to be thought of as intelligent. So what will aliens think if we just shoot off a rotating laser beacon, a flashing “Eat at Earth” sign? No, we want something both complex and redundant. Like Mozart. Or fancypants math.

Mozart has a lot of redundancy, or at least his music does. It tends to restrict itself to a handful of frequencies, and return to pasterns of those frequencies regularly. It keeps to a particular period, or some multiple of that period. So maybe Mozart — in a raw and uncompressed form — is a good test for intelligent life. Ah, nice work: no bird-brained alien can come up with that melody!

But what if that level of redundancy just doesn’t resonate with an alien intelligence? What if it is so regularized that they assume that it is a natural phenomenon? The idea, of course, is not to come up with a “supernatural” signal. No such thing. We are natural. We’re just smarter than whales. And we want to find other creatures in the universe that are smarter than whales, but hopefully not much smarter than us, because otherwise they will think us dreadfully boring creatures that might be fun to eat. You know, like whales. But the trick is, we don’t really know what we mean by “intelligent.”

I have a feeling one thing we mean by intelligent is able to converse with us. That is, if we suddenly got a signal from space that, when placed on a 1000 x 1000 grid was a very clear representation of a circle, well, we would be set. Whales don’t digitize circles. That’s a “higher order thinking” sort of thing; a pure math thing. It’s also something we would expect to be extremely unlikely to occur naturally. The trick is, would people 150 years ago have realized what to do with that information? And if we can’t even prove our intelligence two ourselves, six generations removed, then we have some real problems demonstrating our “intelligence” to creatures from another world. We have a shot at recognizing socialized humans, maybe, but why are we so convinced that other intelligent creatures will think like we do, when our thought has ontogenetically and phylogenetically been shaped by a very particular environment? And what if they are mathematically illiterate? Are they no longer worth talking to?

The real proof of intelligence remains the Turing test. I have a feeling that a one-way Turing test is what these folks have in mind. When we play them Mozart, they are intelligent if they recognize it as intelligent. We are on, to some extent, the same wavelength. There are computer programs that generate symphonies — symphonies that may well register as “intelligent” to many listeners — but in any event, these are far more complex (perhaps) than the simple calls of animals or naturally occurring songs. We made the symphony, even if we employed complex tools to create it.

What we really need, to determine whether a message is intelligent, is to see both an input and an output; a processing that suggests learning. No single message, no matter how complex will self-encode enough information to be meaningful on its own. Instead, we need the back and forth of conversation. And I am guessing that by the time we can converse, we will no longer be in a position of guessing whether we have found alien life. We’ll know it when we see it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

8 Comments

  1. Alex Tan
    Posted 12/15/2004 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Sign Language – in my observations of human communication, it is possibly the most compressed…maybe we can learn a thing or two from that.

  2. Posted 12/15/2004 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Compressed, yes, but also extremely context sensitive. But you may be on the right track here. We need to imagine a case in which someone could learn to understand language without interacting with anyone else or living in their environment. I suspect it is impossible.

  3. Posted 12/16/2004 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    HAHAHA! I am trying SO hard to remember that question and I vaguely remember Stephanie saying the word “bits.”

    Your wife may have an unfair advantage by being around you and probably having such conversations before. It would be like me asking my husband about copyrights, and good/bad culture–that was a hot topic for us a week ago, of course he’d get the answer.

    You didn’t mention what makes Mozart complex, only what makes his work redundant. Is our goal to be able to differeniate from melody one and it’s mirror image, and those subtle note changes?

  4. Posted 12/16/2004 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Sarah: Actually, the question went to the other group. I may post all the questions from the exams to let the blog audience take a crack at it.

    What makes something “complex” is a complex question, and one that has been bothering folks a lot over the last couple of decades. There are a lot of opinions as to how to decide how complex something is.

    One of those has to do with algorithmic length. That is, if you can write a program to produce a particular message, how short can that program be? In the case of Mozart, this is a little difficult, since we only want so much complexity in our music. Already, Emperor Joseph II famously complained of one of Mozart’s operas that it had “too many notes.” Of course, the more notes (and the less predictable those notes) the more complex the piece of music.

    So, I think I was saying that complexity has something to do with the fractal dimension of music, the variations on a theme. But the truth is that such variations on a theme exist in nature as well.

    Think of the image of smoke swirling from the end of a cigarette. I think most of us would agree that it can be both beautiful and complex, but not the outcome of any sort of intelligent procedure.

    Or, to take an issue nearer to the hearts of the religious debate lately, is evolution intelligent? Mind you, I think it is. Even though it is “natural” and does not occur within what we could consider a single animal, I think evolution is a prime example of intelligence.

    Which leaves us with some strange questions. How do we define a species of alien life? Will we accept hive minds (which are, of course, a mainstay of SF depictions of alien intelligence), or intelligent ecosystems?

    The question remains far too underdefined, and far to Earth-centric, for my tastes.

  5. Alex Tan
    Posted 12/16/2004 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    In the spirit of systems theory, a complex matter/system contains multiple non-linear relationships amongst its primitives.

    I think what makes something complex is our inability to decipher a coherent pattern quickly, because of the limited processing power of our brain.

    Mozart’s ability to see a musical pattern of the collective sounds of the various instruments in his head, and our inability to do that, makes him complex.

  6. Posted 12/17/2004 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Interesting post… you might want to do some web searching, though… the Turing Test has been pretty soundly beaten down over the last few years, at least as being any meaningful sign of intelligence…

  7. Posted 12/17/2004 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Chris: Do you have a citation? Naturally, the Turing Test has been continually debated, from the moment Turing suggested it. But I hadn’t noticed any particular sea change, or reasonable alternative. My google skillz may be lacking, but I don’t find any recent serious refutation.

  8. Posted 12/20/2004 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Chris (via backchannel) points to what looks like an interesting overarching discussion of the debate surrounding the Turing Test here: pdf.

    In actually reading what I wrote, I realize where his objection comes. I write “The real proof of intelligence remains the Turing Test.” What I meant, although it is certainly not stated clearly here, is that “For the project’s view of intelleigence, the proof remains the Turing Test.” Thus the paragraph above in which I write “We have a shot at recognizing socialized humans, maybe, but why are we so convinced that other intelligent creatures will think like we do.” In other words, I suspect that at least in this aspect, Chris and I are in furious agreement.

    Whether the TT is an effective heuristic for furthering AI research is another question, and one (since the last time I did anything directly related to AI was at UCSD in 1991) that I am pretty unlikely to have a good grasp of.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  • Tweets

  • Archives