Talk:Great Filter

message: This page was the subject of a VfD debate on April 16, 2005. The decision was to merge and redirect to/with Fermi Paradox. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Great Filter for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am suggesting this page be merged with Rare Earth hypothesis J8079s (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  new merge proposal 

message: We have not yet observed evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. As Hanson notes, "If such advanced life had substantially colonized our planet, we would know it by now."[2] Furthermore, we have seen no evidence elsewhere in the universe either, despite centuries of astronomical observations. Hanson states:[2]
:This doesn't make any sense.  The first sentence already implies the second, so why is it stated twice?  And the note isn't Hanson, but a restatement of the FP by Hanson.  And what does the length of time spent making astronomical observations have to do with this subject?  This needs to be rewritten to stick to the topic of the Great Filter using only reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence only implies the second if you make a lot of implicit assumptions that need spelling out in the article.  That called "explanation" and is not OR. --Michael C. Price talk 11:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no sense whatsoever to say the same thing twice, nor to mention something completely out of left field like "despite centuries of astronomical observations".  What source about the GF says this explicitly?  None.  Why is it in the article?  What does it have to do with the Great Filter?  Nothing whatsoever. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Q Why is it in the article? A: it's an explanation. --Michael C. Price talk 11:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an explanation of the Great Filter.  In fact, it has nothing to do with the Great Filter.  What is it explaining?  The content, "despite centuries of astronomical observations" has nothing to do with this subject.  What is it explaining?  As far as I can tell, it's a misreading of the Fermi paradox.  Aliens have had centuries to colonize the galaxy and the Solar System.  Since they aren't here, and we don't find their artifacts, their colonies, or their broadcasts, then where are they?  This has nothing to do with the length of time we have been observing the skies.  So, what is it explaining and why does it keep getting added to an article about the Great Filter?  And, what source is being used to support it? Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it explaining? It's explaining how we know we live in a dead universe.  Of course there is other evidence (which Hanson also mentions), but you seem obsessively focused on one to the exclusion of all else. --Michael C. Price talk 11:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please either quote Hanson (or another author) directly or paraphrase unambiguously from the source to make your point.  This is very simple.  What we do not do, is interpret as you and Lou are doing.  That's OR.  What we write has to be unambiguous and easy to find in the original source.  Please fix the problem I have described or I will remove it again.  If the material cannot be found in the original source, explanation or not, it doesn't belong here.  Everything we write must be attributable to a reliable source.  We do not write ambiguous interpretations.  Please rewrite it so that it conforms with the source and is reflected in that source without any interpretation.  A direct quote from Hanson's essay, or preferably, commentary about the GF from another reliable source, would solve the problem.  Please solve the problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the last comment by me as well.  How can you interpret the statement "Our planet and solar system, however, don't look substantially colonized by advanced competitive life from the stars, and neither does anything else we see." and "To the contrary, we have had great success at explaining the behavior of our planet and solar system, nearby stars, our galaxy, and even other galaxies, via simple "dead" physical processes, rather than the complex purposeful processes of advanced life." without invoking astronomy?  Where do you think Hanson got this idea from, if not astronomy?  If you cannot answer this, then astronomy must stay in, for that is a signficant line of evidence in the argument, and the reader deserves to know where the evidence came from.    LouScheffer (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't any more significant than saying what all the other reliable sources have said.  I've posted Ćirković below for you to read and compare.  It boils down to "that would have been detected with our current instrumentation" not "despite centuries of astronomical observation".  Two different statements entirely, and I plan on using the reliably sourced version from this or another secondary source, not your own interpretation of a primary source which cannot be traced to the original topic and which is totally irrelevant.  It does not matter how long we have been observing the universe.  The FP still holds.  And again, we do not make assumptions about sources, about what the author thinks or doesn't think, or try to interpret primary source material.  We go directly from the secondary sources whenever possible, and if we must use primary material like Hanson's essay, we quote and paraphrase it closely and accurately.  If you can't do that, you have no business using it as a source. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also dispute this text. "'We' have not yet observed evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life". Who is 'we' in this context? I think the list of people who think otherwise in this context is growing in numbers. And what is meant by "observe"? I have watched hundreds of YouTube videos filming UFOs, is this not 'observation' of evidence? Regardless of authenticity or conspiracy theories, the mere fact that there are thousands of UFO sightings, abductions, implants, and so on, makes this statement disputable, and therefore should be removed. And what is meant by 'evidence'? Some researchers will point to historic locations as evidences, such as the pyramids, pumapunku, the nazca mountains, etc. So, once again, I dispute this.Zero.vishnu (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed text

message: Social scientist Robin Hanson has said that this has been in preprint since 1998.  Has it ever been published? Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First draft was written in 1996, it seems.  Is it fair to call this an unpublished hypothesis? Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Essay appears to be offline but available on the Internet Archive.  Is there a working link for it besides cache copies? Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The link in reference 2 works fine for me; that's where I got the quotes.  LouScheffer (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you post the link here so there is no confusion?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the Great Filter hypothesis 

message: *Checklinks: Great Filter: HTTP 110
**So Lou, are you still going to tell me that the link works fine for you, or will you admit that you've been going off of your browser cache?  Is there another answer? Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Checklinks

message: With technology, such as self-replicating spacecraft, these niches would include neigbouring star systems
:Michael C. Price just added a huge swath of information not found in Hanson's essay.  Where does Hanson discuss Von Neumann probes?  He doesn't, but Bostrom does.  The problem is that Michael C. Price quotes Bostrom and then pretends in the next sentence that he has cited Hanson by writing, "Yet, as Hanson notes, 'If such advanced life had substantially colonized our planet, we would know it by now.'"  Here again, we see two sources used to say something that they don't.  Hanson isn't talking about Von Neumann probes in his essay.  In the section cited, he's talking about megascale engineering. Again, Michael C. Price is mixing and matching sources to say what he wants them to say, rather than what they actually say.  Could Micheal C. Price be so kind as to actually cite the correct theories (FP not GP) and authors (Bostrom not Hanson) when adding material?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Add the Bostrom source, if you're so concerned, and stop wasting our time here.--Michael C. Price talk 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is used to improve the article, not to waste time.  If you feel your time is being wasted here, go use it somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it have to be spelt out?  Why didn't you add the Bostrom cite yourself, rather than come here and complain it wasn't there, wasting much more time? --Michael C. Price talk 09:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the entire section requires extensive rewriting. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-replicating spacecraft 

message: I have protected this article from editing to prevent an ongoing edit war. Please work this out here, and request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if there is agreement before the article is automatically unprotected in one week. Possible places to ask for outside input include: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, or a relevant WikiProject. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked 

message: The whole section seems to be a counterargument against the FP, not the GF. --Michael C. Price talk 08:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Can you be specific so that I can address your concerns? Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I disagree, too.  There are a whole class of "solutions" to the Fermi paradox that support the Great Filter, or at least do not contradict it - good planets are rare, it's hard for life to arise, life seldom becomes complex, complex life seldom becomes intelligent, intelligent life always self-destructs, and so on.  But there are lots of FP solutions that contradict the GF, that argue that *both* life is common and our future is not bleak. These are the scenarios that should be called out in the counterarguments section.   LouScheffer (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterargument?

message: There are many alternative scenarios that might allow intelligent life to evolve many times, without either catastrophic self-destruction or glaringly visible evidence. These scenerios are explored in detail in the section of the Fermi paradox argument "They do exist, but we see no evidence". Arguments include that it is too expensive to spread physically throughout the galaxy, they tend to experience a technological singularity, Earth is purposely isolated, it is dangerous to communicate and hence civilizations actively hide, and many others.
:Please remember to avoid self-references.  The duplicate arguments can be merged inline as links to Shostak's comments. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions to counterargument section 

message: Please correct the 4th item in "Hanson's list"! Prokaryotes are no longer a monophyletic group (or taxon) but they still consist of bacteria and archaea. --91.120.132.43 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaea is prokaryotic 

message: Based on the available evidence at this time, the probability of self-destruction is higher than any other variable. It seems unlikely that humanity, in their present physical form of naked, tree-dwelling primates, will ever reach the stars.  Based on current trends, planetary extinction is the likeliest outcome, which explains the great silence.  The dinosaurs had plenty of time to develop technology and leave the planet but did not or could not.  There is no good reason to think our future will be any different.  I know of at least two alternate outcomes to this likely scenario, but they would involve purposefully and deliberately changing the structure of human societies to ensure survival, which given the current climate seems even less likely.  On the other hand, it may be possible for isolated communities to escape the confines of their home planets and to survive in isolated niches, but the technological and psychological barriers are so great as to make this option almost impossible. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  High probability of self-destruction 

message: Doesn't this depend how we define and measure intelligence?
The citation which is supposed to prove the claim only refers to the lack of any intelligent alien species colonizing Earth. It doesn't show that there aren't other intelligent earth-native species. It is unclear whether, for example, some dolphin species have language. It is clear that several other species, including our closest great ape relatives, use tools. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and this question has been subject to some controversy because if we decide as a species that we are part of nature (not estranged and at war with it) then we must cast aside all of our other assumptions which underlie our society and civilization. So, you see, there are vested interests at work holding tightly to the notion that we are the only intelligent species, because if they let go of it for just a moment, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, isn't there such a thing as a terrestrial bias, where we expect ET life to follow the terrestrial (terrestocentric?) models of life and intelligence. The result may be (and probably includes) casting away positive evidence that doesn't fit mainstream expectations. Kortoso (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's generally referred to as "Earth chauvinism", and it is inherently a type of speciesism with a bit of sampling bias thrown in for good measure.  When I went to college, you weren't even allowed to talk about exoplanets or they would take you away.   Marcy persisted and asked NASA for several thousand dollars to buy some computer equipment and even they refused. The subject of non-human intelligence is experiencing the same paradigm blindness. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we the only intelligent species on Earth? 

message: Assume absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. Then our posterior on observing no aliens equals our prior, 
P(life|¬observ)=P(life)
By Bayes, P(L|¬O)/P(L) = P(¬O|L)/P(¬O)
P(L|¬O) = P(L)  =>  P(¬O|L)/P(¬O) = 1  =>  P(¬O|L) = P(¬O)
P(¬observ|life)=P(¬observ)
Given P(¬O)=P(¬O|L), can we show also P(O|L)=P(O)? Yes:
P(¬O|L)=P(¬O ∩ L)/P(L)=P(¬O)
P( O|L)=P( O ∩ L)/P(L)
P((O ∩ L) ∪ (¬O ∩ L)) = P(O ∩ L) + P(¬O ∩ L) - P(¬O ∩ O ∩ L)
P((O ∩ L) ∪ (¬O ∩ L)) = P(L)
subproof:
(O ∩ L) ∪ (¬O ∩ L) = (O ∩ L ∪ ¬O) ∩ (O ∩ L ∪ L) distribute
= ((O ∪ ¬O) ∩ (L ∪ ¬O)) ∩ (O ∩ L ∪ L) distribute
= (L ∪ ¬O) ∩ (O ∩ L ∪ L) simplify
= (L ∪ ¬O) ∩ L absorption
= (L ∩ L) ∪ (¬O ∩ L) distribute
= L ∪ (L ∩ ¬O)
= L absorption
continuing:
P(L) = P(O ∩ L) + P(¬O ∩ L) since P(O ∩ L) and P(¬O ∩ L) are exclusive
P(O ∩ L) = P(L)-P(¬O ∩ L) = P(L)-P(¬O)P(L) = P(L) (1-P(¬O)) = P(L) P(O)
P( O|L) = P(O)
so P(observ|life) = P(observ)
Consequentially (see above) P(life|observ)=P(life). So our observation, if it takes place, cannot be evidence _for_ life either, since our posterior p of life under observation equals the prior. Ergo it's not evidence, contradiction, qed. In general, if seeing something is probabilistic evidence for X, then not seeing it has to be evidence against X, or you run into this contradiction. Note: there's probably a simpler way to show this. Feel free to edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.86.29 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to believe your logic is right, but consequently it means absolutely nothing. The key point is that evidence can be weak or strong. Absence of evidence can be extremely weak (up to almost not changing the actual expected probability of existence, which might be 100% by theory, for example a missing link in evolution) depending on the circumstances - i.e., how well you are able to look. For example, in medieval times in Europe, there was 100% total absence of evidence of the existence of Australia (and America). Another example is an experiment: I get binoculars and I am asked to find evidence for the existence of Australia standing alone at a small mountain in a natural reserve in France, assuming no prior knowledge and given 10 minutes time. I will find absence of evidence since my available methods (= my technologies) are insufficient for the task. --2003:E3:7713:9061:85D0:B51B:8B54:3EF8 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, proof 

message: The article says "With no evidence of intelligent life other than ourselves [...]"
So evidence of unintelligent life has been found, or what? Am I missing something? I believe nothing has been found. Are bacteria intelligent life?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.198.68 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The full argument is as follows: "With no evidence of intelligent life other than ourselves, it appears that the process of starting with a star and ending with "advanced explosive lasting life" must be unlikely."  I'm not sure what part you are having trouble understanding.  The argument does not imply that bacteria are intelligent, it implies that we are intelligent (which is debatable considering we can barely travel throughout our own solar system) and it implies that because aliens do not appear to be here (fermi paradox, again debatable, see zoo hypothesis, etc.) it is unlikely for intelligent life to arise.  The argument itself is only a thought experiment, as there are many variables it does not take into account.  However, it is a helpful heuristic for thinking about the fermi paradox, but it is not the only one, and it has many limitations.  Personally, I think it is completely wrong in many different ways, but some experts find it helpful to use in related discussions to flesh out aspects of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish people would stop muddying the waters. It's one thing to consider whether ANY form of extraterrestrial life exists in the universe. It's a completely different consideration (IMHO) whether there is any "intelligent" (as we define it) extraterrestrial life in the universe. Kortoso (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life vs intelligent life 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Filter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619025348/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next031104.htm to https://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next031104.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hanson never elaborates what constitutes step 8 on his list of 9 steps toward interstellar colonization; he merely refers to it as "where we are now". This is tagged with a request for clarification, but would such clarification by way of paraphrasing constitute original research? My best attempt at that would be something like "global utilization of planetary resources by the intelligent species". GearheadLydia (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that unless there is a dedicated content wonk carefully monitoring the article for changes, you end up with a page that reads like Chinese whispers (telephone).  In other words, your request for clarification is based on edits that have been shoehorned into the article with sources that don’t support the content. Correct me if I’m wrong, but where does anyone mention the Kardashev scale, for example? Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Where we are now" clarification 

message: Any potential paragraphs where we can add about Stephen hawking's 2009 party, where he made a declaration inviting all the space and time travellers to come join that party. But noone joined at the specified time, so it tells that maybe no other extraterrestrial Life has achieved space or time travel, or they simply are not interested in joining that party Securearth (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Hawking's time travellers party