Survey about extreme life extension

The ELPIs Foundation for Indefinite Lifespans (www.elpisfil.org) is conducting a survey to study people's perceptions and thoughts about radical life extension.

The questionnaire is available here:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TVSL7HX

It was designed by Cadell Last, of the http://theadvancedapes.com/. Everybody is invited to fill it in.The results will give us a better idea about the issue of extreme lifespan extension. Have a go...

Edited by Marios Kyriazis, 20 February 2014 - 07:00 PM.

I took the survey. I will be interested to find out the results.

I took the survey. I will be interested to find out the results.

We will let the survey open for about 3 weeks, and then announce the results when ready. Will let you know.

Question 18 states


"I feel uncomfortable about the similarities between religious belief in an afterlife and the scientific belief in RLE."


"scientific belief in" is not a very sciencey phrase, it's more philosophy and religion. I couldn't finish the survey just because I have difficulty taking it seriously now, I am too programmed from dealing with intellectual poison from Intelligent Design proponents to do anything but cringe at phrases like that

"scientific belief in" is not a very sciencey phrase, it's more philosophy and religion. I couldn't finish the survey just because I have difficulty taking it seriously now, I am too programmed from dealing with intellectual poison from Intelligent Design proponents to do anything but cringe at phrases like that

There is nothing wrong mixing science with philosophy or even religion. But one needs to have the intellectual rigour to be able to keep boundaries between these three disciplines, and not confuse one with the other. Scientists can 'believe' in something and still be considered scientists. You said it yourself; you are 'too programmed', in other words, you 'blindly believe in...'

By the way: it would be impossible to achieve radical life extension if we only depend on science alone. We need an element of philosophy as well. This is my belief!

"scientific belief in" is not a very sciencey phrase, it's more philosophy and religion. I couldn't finish the survey just because I have difficulty taking it seriously now, I am too programmed from dealing with intellectual poison from Intelligent Design proponents to do anything but cringe at phrases like that

There is nothing wrong mixing science with philosophy or even religion. But one needs to have the intellectual rigour to be able to keep boundaries between these three disciplines, and not confuse one with the other. Scientists can 'believe' in something and still be considered scientists. You said it yourself; you are 'too programmed', in other words, you 'blindly believe in...'

By the way: it would be impossible to achieve radical life extension if we only depend on science alone. We need an element of philosophy as well. This is my belief!

You misunderstood - what I meant is that I am experientially biased against such phraseology (not the general concept, but the way it is expressed) due to my interactions with anti-evolutionists/creationists, who frequently employ phrases like that with a sneering tone in order to undermine science and those who are science-minded, often implying science and acceptance of scientific findings are faith-based the same way religion is. After years of this, I now cannot help but associate it with anti-intellectual propaganda.

As science is built upon and relies upon philosophy, something I frequently have to remind atheists of, I am well aware of the interrelationship between science and philosophy and do not disagree with your statements.

Edited by Duchykins, 21 February 2014 - 11:16 PM.

Some interesting answers to our survey are:
Most of those surveyed believe that aging will be completely eliminated by 2050, that there won't be any overpopulation issues, and that the idea of an imminent treatment is positive and exiting. The survey is available here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TVSL7HX

I took the survey too. Looking forward for the results, i hope enough people take the survey to make results interesting.

Hey, I can't remember the question number but at one point there's a repeated question.
Great survery however. Enjoyed it and wonder what people will say (I hope you get answers from non LE folks).

I think an important aspect of this research that is missing is the social perception piece, i.e., how the average person perceives someone who believes in, or identifies with the cause of, radical life extension. I suspect there is a stigma against these beliefs, and the people who hold them, because they are perceived as being radical and similar to religious beliefs (i.e., lacking a rational basis).

I think an important aspect of this research that is missing is the social perception piece, i.e., how the average person perceives someone who believes in, or identifies with the cause of, radical life extension. I suspect there is a stigma against these beliefs, and the people who hold them, because they are perceived as being radical and similar to religious beliefs (i.e., lacking a rational basis).

This is an interesting question to include. But this specific survey is directed at people who are already familiar with the concept of radical life extension, and it is not for an average lay person. In the future we may design a survey directed at any 'ordinary' member of the public.

I took the survey too and found it well formulated. I would like to see results.

It would probably be fruitful to focus on surveying the general public rather than any niche community.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 04 March 2014 - 03:26 AM.

It would probably be fruitful to focus on surveying the general public rather than any niche community.

Well, it depends on what the primary aim of the research is.

Where are the results?

The results of this survey are now available here:

 

Thanks!

As science is built upon and relies upon philosophy, something I frequently have to remind atheists of, I am well aware of the interrelationship between science and philosophy and do not disagree with your statements.

 

 

Philosophy is for people who aren't capable of doing real science.. If you look up on google "Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’"

 

In Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design, it is stated (possibly on on page 13) that  "philosophy is dead"

 

Not that Stephen Hawking is the ultimate final word or anything, but generally I agree with him that we have to move on from beating around the bush and do actual science instead of philosophical rambling and going around in circles with words. Often philosophy ends up coming across Laynes Law too often where they just argue over the definitions of words instead of actually getting something real done, like inventing technology that helps us, or finding out about physics that helps us.

 

Philosophy is for people who can't do science... Similar to Dijkstra's tongue in cheek statement that software engineering is for people who can't do math (i.e. real programmers are also mathematicians).

 

Real scientists generally bypass philosphy as much as possible and head straight over to empirical evidence, math, and facts.

 

 

 

Edited by TheSimulation, 11 July 2015 - 06:51 PM.

 

As science is built upon and relies upon philosophy, something I frequently have to remind atheists of, I am well aware of the interrelationship between science and philosophy and do not disagree with your statements.

 

 

Philosophy is for people who aren't capable of doing real science.. If you look up on google "Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’"

 

In Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design, it is stated (possibly on on page 13) that  "philosophy is dead"

 

Not that Stephen Hawking is the ultimate final word or anything, but generally I agree with him that we have to move on from beating around the bush and do actual science instead of philosophical rambling and going around in circles with words. Often philosophy ends up coming across Laynes Law too often where they just argue over the definitions of words instead of actually getting something real done, like inventing technology that helps us, or finding out about physics that helps us.

 

Philosophy is for people who can't do science... Similar to Dijkstra's tongue in cheek statement that software engineering is for people who can't do math (i.e. real programmers are also mathematicians).

 

Real scientists generally bypass philosphy as much as possible and head straight over to empirical evidence, math, and facts.

 

 

 

 

People who say philosophy is for people who can't do science do not know what science is.  They don't know how science is done.  They also don't know what philosophy of science is.  They don't care.

 

They don't even seem to know what philosophy is since they represent the whole thing as metaphysical semi-religious bunk.  They don't give a shit.

 

This means they do not know what logic is or how it works.  They don't know what modus pones is or what modus tollens is.  They don't know what predicate logic is or first-order logic or what propositional logic is or what modal logic is.  They don't give a damn.

 

Which means they also don't know what mathematics are.  They never heard of philosophy of mathematics or set theory.  They give no fucks.

 

Next is empiricism.  They don't know know what empiricism is.  They never heard of epistomology, they don't know what knowledge theories are.  They can't be bothered with it.

 

BUT... people who say philosophy is for people who can't do science DO know something, and they know it well... they know the art of bullshit.  They care a great deal about that.

...

Philosophy is for people who aren't capable of doing real science.. If you look up on google "Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’"

...

Philosophy is for people who can't do science...

...

Real scientists generally bypass philosphy as much as possible and head straight over to empirical evidence, math, and facts.

Disagree when we talk about philosophy vs. its mumbo jumbo misinterpretation by some.  E.g. deep contemporary theoretical physics problems would likely require, today more than in the past, a philosophical contextualization and understanding. Read Rovelli, Penrose and many others and also a really nice book (if you are a bit versed in physics) "Physics meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale" (C Callender & N. Huggett). Also check this interview with C. Rovelli:

"Quantum Gravity Expert Says “Philosophical Superficiality” Has Harmed Physics"

http://blogs.scienti...cs-expert-says/

Absolutely core elements of science like cause and effect, determinism, replication, inductive reasoning, deductive logic etc are deeply philosophical in nature. Also, it seems kind of ironic to use the name "The Simulation", given the philosophical argument often raised in popular science discussions these days that the observable universe might be a simulation.

 

I can easily imagine that many scientists are unaware of and pay little attention to the philosophical origins and foundations of their discipline. No doubt some disparage philosophy even, but this is due to their ignorance - science wouldn't exist if not for philosophy. It is akin to the fact that a driver in a car doesn't have to know anything about engineering, despite the fact that the operation of the car and their very life depends on engineering.

 

Science without a "governing", defining and constraining philosophy is no longer science - it easily wanders into religion, superstition and other areas. The same sort of thing happens in everyday life - people are simply unaware of how much and how deeply their worldview is the result of philosophy and past philosophers. Many don't consider for a second why they hold a particular view about the world or their place in it that is drastically different to their ancestors 200 years ago - they just largely unconsciously absorb their worldview from their upbringing and surroundings. Not unlike perhaps how a science student can absorb the nicely preformed principles and methods of science from university without much need for inquiry into the how or why of such things.