[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.

But it clearly has happened, so there is no Great Filter.

You seem to be missing about Fermi paradox.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

An interesting definition. So prisoners and slaves have no consciousness,

They have, although not as high as free persons, all else being equal. They can revolt, for instance. Some of them succeeded.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Wolves and daisies are capable of surviving unaided in environments where humans require all sorts of support.

Can daisies determine where or how they will live tomorrow?

Some humans have high survivability in their environment due to local wisdom. Some get it through formal trainings.

[alancalverd]

The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universe

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is doubtful that any terrestrial civilisation would have been observable even from the  outer planets before 1900. Our observability depends on radio signals. It  has so far only lasted for 120 years and may not persist for the next 200. It is doubtful whether we could ever observe intelligent radio signals from a planet with a thicker Heaviside layer, and any civilisation on a densely clouded planet or one completely covered with water would probably remain invisible for ever. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.

Does the sun alive?

It's not in equilibrium with anything else.

Its gravitational attraction is in equilibrium with its thermodynamic repulsion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universe

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is doubtful that any terrestrial civilisation would have been observable even from the  outer planets before 1900. Our observability depends on radio signals. It  has so far only lasted for 120 years and may not persist for the next 200. It is doubtful whether we could ever observe intelligent radio signals from a planet with a thicker Heaviside layer, and any civilisation on a densely clouded planet or one completely covered with water would probably remain invisible for ever. 

Why haven't they come here yet?

[alancalverd]

For the same reasons that we haven't been there. Or that I haven't been to Ulan Bator:

(a) I have no reason to believe that I can do more useful business there than here 

(b) there are lots of other places to visit.

There are probably 10²⁴ stars in the observable universe, between 8 light minutes and 13,400,000,000 light years away.

It has taken terrestrial life 4,500,000,000 years to get to the moon, just two light seconds away, we haven't spent a whole week there, and nobody has been back for 50 years.  Even if every star has a habitable planet, the probability of anyone else visiting us within the span of recorded history is beyond negligible.

[alancalverd]

Its gravitational attraction is in equilibrium with its thermodynamic repulsion.

No. The solar wind is carrying bits of it into outer space.

[alancalverd]

Some humans have high survivability in their environment due to local wisdom.

Not sure how well jungle dwellers would survive in the arctic, or that Inuit hunters would fare too well in the jungle. Wolves seem remarkably adaptable in comparison.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Its gravitational attraction is in equilibrium with its thermodynamic repulsion.

No. The solar wind is carrying bits of it into outer space.

Right. Living organisms don't do such a thing.
But living organism also perform respiration and perspiration, which means they are not in equilibrium either.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For the same reasons that we haven't been there. Or that I haven't been to Ulan Bator:

(a) I have no reason to believe that I can do more useful business there than here 

(b) there are lots of other places to visit.

There are probably 10²⁴ stars in the observable universe, between 8 light minutes and 13,400,000,000 light years away.

It has taken terrestrial life 4,500,000,000 years to get to the moon, just two light seconds away, we haven't spent a whole week there, and nobody has been back for 50 years.  Even if every star has a habitable planet, the probability of anyone else visiting us within the span of recorded history is beyond negligible.

Living organisms reproduce exponentially. So does technological advancement, with even shorter time scale.

How long will it take for terrestrial life to get to Mars? I bet not much different than 4.5 billion years.

There must be some reason why people think they need to propose the great filter hypothesis. We just have to identify their axioms.

[alancalverd]

Some people like to think that we are special. We may indeed be unique, but that isn't the same. The conditions for producing life as we know it probably exist elsewhere, so it is unlikely that we are anything more than one opportunistic product of universal chemistry that could have produced, say, an octopus or a slime mould.

It's worth considering the questions "how unlike us would a life form have to be for us not to recognise it, or for it not to consider us worth seeking?" Assuming the laws of physics are universal, even if homo verosapiens   evolved somewhere else, how much time and energy would he have to spend to find us, why would he want to, and what is the probability that he would have done so in the 10^-8 part of the life of the universe that we have been hoping to record his visits?

Shrink the timescale for a thought experiment. If you fell into the Pacific Ocean and sank to the bottom, how long would it take for anyone to find you by accident? That's about 30% of the earth's surface accounted for. The Atlantic is another 20%.....chances are that even if they have been here, we'll never know!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Assuming the laws of physics are universal, even if homo verosapiens   evolved somewhere else, how much time and energy would he have to spend to find us, why would he want to, and what is the probability that he would have done so in the 10-8 part of the life of the universe that we have been hoping to record his visits?

Because stars have finite lifetime. Conscious entities whom they help evolving may find a way to outlast them, by looking for and going to younger stars in order to survive. Some of them may cross path with us. We may not be what they are really looking for. If they consider us as mere disturbance, they may decide to remove us. We would be in a better bargaining position when we do meet them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Shrink the timescale for a thought experiment. If you fell into the Pacific Ocean and sank to the bottom, how long would it take for anyone to find you by accident? That's about 30% of the earth's surface accounted for. The Atlantic is another 20%.....chances are that even if they have been here, we'll never know!

What if you can somehow survive for thousands of years? The chance would be near 100%, considering how busy future humans' agents would be with exponential technological advancement.
People are too accustomed with linear thinking. We often feel that exponential progress unintuitive. Just like this one:
If you were to fold a piece of paper in half 42 times, it would reach the moon.

[alancalverd]

Or our successors may turn out to be knuckledragging Republicans with guns and bibles.The number of theocracies has increased since Man last visited the moon, and we're not even allowed to call ourselves Man any more!.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not sure how well jungle dwellers would survive in the arctic, or that Inuit hunters would fare too well in the jungle. Wolves seem remarkably adaptable in comparison.

It seems that you keep missing to consider collective consciousness. An individual human may not be able to do much, but a global civilization can do a lot. Social animals have shown various levels of collective consciousness.

This video is a good reminder that even an individual human is the product of collective consciousness of individual cells that make him up. They don't even have to be genetically identical.

[alancalverd]

Ah, global civilisation. So that's what causes pogroms, genocide and world wars, eh?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ah, global civilisation. So that's what causes pogroms, genocide and world wars, eh?

pogroms, genocide and wars, already occurred long before humans have global civilization. That's why we need to be more civilized.
Global civilization is an intermediate step before we build interplanetary and interstellar civilization.

What do you expect from global wolves community or global daisy community?

[alancalverd]

pogroms, genocide and wars, already occurred long before humans have global civilization.

Clearly not true. You need an army to do any of that, which implies civilisation - i.e. some sort of established order - and one of the reasons for starting such action is to preserve what you claim to be a threat to global civilisation, or to establish a global civilisation.

Wolves and daisies do their best to establish what they consider to be a global civilisation by dominating whatever part of the ecology matters to them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

pogroms, genocide and wars, already occurred long before humans have global civilization.

Clearly not true. You need an army to do any of that, which implies civilisation - i.e. some sort of established order - and one of the reasons for starting such action is to preserve what you claim to be a threat to global civilisation, or to establish a global civilisation.

Wolves and daisies do their best to establish what they consider to be a global civilisation by dominating whatever part of the ecology matters to them.

What do you call the killing of Canaanites by ancient Jews? Or killing of a tribe of chimps by another chimp tribe? Or killing of an entire bee hive by a group of hornets?