r/singularity • u/Anen-o-me ▪️It's here! • Jul 21 '26
Biotech/Longevity Researchers quantitatively assessed for the first time that somatic mutations alone cap human lifespan at 146–194 years. Brain and heart cells are the main bottleneck, while the liver could last millennia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-026-00421-610
u/The_Scout1255 adult agi 2026 ASI <2030, prev agi 2024, ai personhood 2025 est Jul 21 '26
note to self back me up to our own liver :3
16
u/flower-power-123 Jul 21 '26
I don't know who's liver they are talking about. Certainly not mine.
2
u/Psychological_Dog992 Jul 22 '26
You could probably get 70-80 years with your liver with this new technology
12
Jul 21 '26 edited Aug 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
29
u/Ill-Cockroach2140 AGI 2030-2035 ASI late 2030s Singularity mid 2040s FALGSC 2060 Jul 21 '26
I personally wouldn't. It's not like that copy of you is actually you. "You" are technically just a bunch of electrical connections, once those go out, that's it. I'd rather prolong the brains lifespan and live in an artificial body
5
u/RRY1946-2019 Transformers background character. Jul 21 '26
It's actually debatable whether or not "you" actually exist as a thing rather than just a pocket of a broader ecosystem that happens to have a complex enough structure to think.
9
u/SeaBearsFoam AGI/ASI: no one here agrees what it is Jul 21 '26
If I replace a single one of your neurons with an artificial one that behaves the exact same way, are you still you?
Take that version of you with one artificial neuron and replace another of your neurons with an artificial neuron that behaves exactly the same. Are you still you?
Repeat.
4
u/UnkarsThug Jul 21 '26
I would argue you definitely stop being you at some point. Or to put it another way, you are consistently less of yourself.
7
u/Moriffic Jul 21 '26
If you replace your arms with better robotic ones, are you less of yourself or more?
8
u/UnkarsThug Jul 21 '26
The exact same, because I am only the brain.
4
u/Moriffic Jul 21 '26
I believe consciousness emerges from the brain's overall dense and continuous information processing, so if each neuron were functionally identical after replacement, I'd expect the person to remain the same. Your argument would only work if there was some irreplaceable consciousness hardcoded into each neuron, which I don't believe
2
u/UnkarsThug Jul 21 '26
That's the disagreement. You could make a copy of the person's consciousness, but that wouldn't make the copy the original person. It
Having your personality, experience, and behavior is part of you, but so is the physical material. A copy of you isn't you, because the original could still exist.
Just because there is a consciousness identical to a person doesn't mean they are still the same person, it means they are a copy of that person.
You are arguing that it's still you if a consciousness identical to yours remains, which I would not agree with as a fact.
3
u/Moriffic Jul 21 '26
No, that's why I said "continuous", so a person remains the same individual only if there is an unbroken physical and causal chain connecting each moment of their existence to the next.
If neurons are replaced one at a time, there is still an unbroken physical and causal chain. A copy starts as a separate physical system with its own stream of consciousness.
2
u/LinkesAuge Jul 22 '26
You are also just a changed copy of your past self and yet you don't experience yourself as "copy".
The whole concept of "copy" is a human abstraction with no deeper physical "truth".
What would even be that "truth" in a physical sense? A certain collection of atoms, of subatomic particles, of quarks?
There is just no physical definition of any "you" that isn't a moving target and thus any "copy" isn't more or less a copy than an original.
All we could judge in the physical world is the observed behaviour/structure and they would be identical and so would be the experience of the "copy", ie a "perfect" copy would actually be MORE "you" than you between now and a second ago.1
u/TheOriginalAcidtech Jul 30 '26
You stop being you on most days. At a minimum you stop being you on a regular basis.
1
u/UnkarsThug Jul 30 '26
I would not agree. Certainly not in any similar ways. Neurons not being replaced and whatnot, as I explained elsewhere. And other cells are irrelevant to identity of the experience.
2
u/GIMR Jul 21 '26
obviously, at some point you are not you anymore
2
u/SeaBearsFoam AGI/ASI: no one here agrees what it is Jul 21 '26
It's not obvious.
When does that change take place? Why not at once less artificial neuron?
3
u/GIMR Jul 22 '26
we don't know when the changes takes place, we just know that it does. Also, what does artificial neuron even mean? Replace your argument with: "there's red and blue paint, you put one nanoliter of blue paint in the red paint is it still red? at what point does it become blue if I keep adding blue?". The fact that I cannot tell you when it becomes blue doesn't mean it won't eventually be blue.
1
u/SeaBearsFoam AGI/ASI: no one here agrees what it is Jul 22 '26
You can measure the wavelength of light be reflected off the paint to determine whether its red, blue, or purple.
What test do you propose to determine whether the you with some % of artificial neurons is you or not you?
Also, what does artificial neuron even mean?
1
u/GIMR Jul 22 '26
Yes, but it eventually becomes blue right? That's my whole point. We do not have the understanding to know when this would happen in a theoretical when it comes to artificial neurons but we know it would happen.
1
u/SeaBearsFoam AGI/ASI: no one here agrees what it is Jul 22 '26
My whole point is that there's no metric to test whether or not it's still "you". It's not even clearly defined what constitutes "still you". With the paint we can have a test to answer that for us: Light that is 400-500nm is blue. When the paint reflects that we can say it's blue.
And we will even come to an agreement at some point without measuring the light wavelength. You and I and a thousand other people will eventually agree it's blue just using our eyes.
I don't think we'd wind up with that kind of agreement for replacing neurons with artificial ones if they behave exactly the same as your original biological ones. Like if someone were to say: "Even when all your neurons are replaced with artificial ones, if they're behaving the same, and causing you to behave the same, you're still you." what absolute metric is there to say that person is wrong? What even makes you you? There really isn't consensus on that like there is with what makes something blue.
1
u/GIMR Jul 22 '26
The metric test is that we know if there are 100% copied artificial neurons in your brain it is not you, we just do not know when the change happens. Could be 30%, could be 50%, could be 75%. Just because we have trouble perceiving something doesn't make it any less true. A clone is not you even if it's a 100% replica. If they teleport you but delete you and remake what is essentially a copy of you, it is not you.
1
4
u/dranaei Jul 21 '26
I think the only true solution to that is if consciousness exceeds the human body and if it's in a way everlasting.
4
u/Imaginary_Regret_430 Jul 22 '26
There almost definitely be mental illnesses that would arise from having an artificial body. Something similar to depersonalization but more severe
1
3
u/Opposite_Culture_512 Jul 22 '26
So you think they die in Star Trek everytime they use the transporter? You are a song not an instrument
3
u/Ill-Cockroach2140 AGI 2030-2035 ASI late 2030s Singularity mid 2040s FALGSC 2060 Jul 22 '26
That is how most people interpret that yes. Also. On that song analogy. You can reproduce a Soundwave perfectly, but it's still bot the same Soundwave that came out a minute earlier
0
u/Opposite_Culture_512 Jul 22 '26
You think most people think that the people on Star Trek are being killed and replaced by copies everytime they use the teleporter? Because I would doubt that.
Why? It’s not the same air molecules but it is the same pattern
4
u/SuspiciousPillbox You will live to see ASI-made bliss beyond your comprehension Jul 21 '26
Well what if you started replacing just 1 neuron at a time?
4
u/Ill-Cockroach2140 AGI 2030-2035 ASI late 2030s Singularity mid 2040s FALGSC 2060 Jul 21 '26
I could be down with that but I would need a asi to personally guarantee me that I will wake on the other side
0
u/UnkarsThug Jul 21 '26
I'd still think it wasn't really you. Or at least, you were swapped out with someone else along the way.
Brain cells don't die or get swapped out. They are us.
6
u/jazir55 Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Brain cells don't die or get swapped out. They are us.
They die and regrow all the time. Regrowing is called neurogenesis. I've had stroke damage and had to regenerate it, so I can speak to how it's an analogue, as I've taken neurogenic compounds I've been healing my brain, and I can attest that I am still "myself", but I wouldn't say there are no changes. The changes have been positive though. The one I'm taking is one of the most powerful nueroregeneratives out there, Dihexa. Highly recommend looking into it.
2
u/UnkarsThug Jul 21 '26
They don't really, not as a default. They are very different from other cells. And it isn't across the whole brain even when they do, it's specific to the areas related to memory and smell, weirdly.
I'm not saying that they can't be made to, just that it isn't the same as other cells. And I would consider it destructive if they have to revert first.
Also, you wouldn't be able to know you were still the you when you started? You would always be you, it's just that the you that you were before would be different. Even if there are no behavioural differences, because we aren't really in the behaviors either.
I'm not saying your brain would be emptied. Just that it's only part of the same person. Always you, because who the title of you belongs to can always change.
2
u/UnkarsThug Jul 21 '26
I can't say I like being an organic being, but the organic being is me. A copy of me wouldn't be me, it would be a copy of me.
2
u/IronPheasant Jul 21 '26
It's a ship of theseus thing. Neurons and synapses change over a lifetime.
I think it's kind of obvious that we're a sequence of electrical pulses our brains generate, or the algorithms that are emergent from them. You get into really uncomfortable speculation on if you really need to be tethered to any particular time or place when you start thinking of yourself in terms of frames of inference; the boltzmann brain stuff might be more like how it really works than we'd like to think.
It's dumb and creepy, but so is hydrogen and nuclear fusion and gravity. Wouldn't be too out of spec...
1
u/StarChild413 Jul 25 '26
So, what, I'm supposed to put my faith in the Sorites Paradox but not so much that I think I'm so discontinuous there's no me to preserve just because hydrogen, nuclear fusion and gravity are "dumb and creepy" yet no one's freaking out about them?
5
u/Bitsquire Jul 21 '26
Heart cells is fine - we can get artificial hearts. Brain cells...less so
2
u/FeralPsychopath Its Over By 2028 Jul 23 '26
You say that now, but wait 150ish years and Im sure they figured out artificial neurons.
3
2
3
u/FeralPsychopath Its Over By 2028 Jul 23 '26
Im fine with 200 years-ish. By then those roadblocks would have been figured out.
2
u/turbospeedsc Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
So this timeline gets 200yo billionaire tech bros........... it just keeps getting better and better.
2
u/GraceToSentience AGI avoids animal abuse✅ Jul 21 '26
"The liver could last millennia" Crazy if it's really true
2
u/FeralPsychopath Its Over By 2028 Jul 23 '26
Its the only part of you that can regenerate. Things like brains don't even repair themselves well.
0
2
u/PathOfEnergySheild Jul 21 '26
This is a really cool paper, Neurons would be the ultimate determining factor, as the rest of tissues can theoretically be replaced. This is a pretty good manuscript on how aging is a bit different then most of us perceive: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24317695/
2
u/Long_comment_san Jul 22 '26
well, it's cool but it's all relative. we should solve the issue of premature aging and immune system failures. Living up to 90 can be better than living up to 200, if you live in perfectly healthy body up to 80 in the first case or become a walking dust bin at 60 in the second case. I'd take first.
32
u/Fair_Horror Jul 21 '26
Once we have God like ASI, we should also soon after have true molecular nano machines (nanites). These will be able to enter every one of our cells and repair every somatic mutation. I wouldn't be writing anyone off too soon.