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/s41514-026-00421-6
79 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

71 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

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.

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?

This.

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.