Skip to main content

Extraterrestrial Languages - Daniel Oberhaus ***

Despite the title, this book isn't about the languages that aliens use, but rather how should we format messages that are intended for non-human recipients? Every now and then, we send something off into space, whether it's the inscribed plaques on the Pioneer probes or messages beamed from radio telescopes. Whether we should do this or not is a contentious issue - Daniel Oberhaus briefly examines the arguments for and against - but the meat of the book is trying to answer the question 'If we do want to communicate to aliens, how could we make our message comprehensible?'

Oberhaus opens the book with a fascinating story I hadn't heard of the astronomer Frank Drake sending a message (by post) in 1961 to 'nine of the smartest individuals in the United States' as a hypothetical message from outer space, consisting of 551 zeroes and ones. The recipients were supposed to spot that this is a multiple of prime numbers, array the zeroes and ones by these numbers and interpret the visual message then presented. None understood it (though one did spot it was a visual array in this format and replied in kind). This so strongly underlines how difficult it is to send a message to someone who has no clue about the format. If humans couldn't interpret a message from other humans, how much harder would it be for a truly alien species?

In the book, Oberhaus takes us through the mechanisms used in the various attempts as well as some theoretical ways of communicating such as artificial languages that have never been used. It is genuinely interesting, but I found it too technical - there were pages at a time that were very hard to get your head around if you aren't involved in the field.

Apart from this occasional impenetrability, as someone involved in improving the quality of university essays, I was a little worried about Oberhaus's assertion that 'Gauss was correct in his estimation of the importance of extraterrestrial contact [as a greater discovery than America]' being made without any evidence to back it up. Bearing in mind we are almost certainly talking about one way communication, I'm not sure this is at all obvious.

Overall, I think the biggest omission is that Oberhaus is not critical enough of the various attempts, which seem intensely naive in their assumption that aliens would be able to (or could be bothered to) interpret something that the chances are no one on Earth could decipher. This is perhaps best underlined in a section on using the arts to communicate. While Oberhaus does end up mostly closing down this approach at one point he says 'One possible solution is to use solely abstract art, which may be considered universally intelligible given its rejection of "cultural, historical or political contexts". This seems totally back to front - abstract art entirely fails to communicate anything concrete with any certainty, being entirely dependent on interpretation.

So, a fascinating topic if, perhaps, talking about a pointless exercise, but could have been addressed more critically and should have been written in less of an academic style if it were to be made approachable by the general reader.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more