Yesterday, May 24, the first Enhanced Games took place in Las Vegas—a competition where, for the first time in history, athletes were openly permitted to use doping under medical supervision.
Organizers called it a "new model of sport," while critics called it a legalized doping Olympics. The main result: Greek athlete Christian Gkolomeyev swam the 50m freestyle in 20.81, breaking the official world record, but sports federations do not recognize this record due to doping and prohibited equipment.
The Enhanced Games published aggregated statistics from their clinical program.
Here's what, according to Enhanced themselves, the participants used:
91%—testosterone or testosterone esters
The basis of a hormonal "enhancement." These forms are typically used to increase strength, power, muscle mass, and accelerate recovery. Esters are variants of testosterone with varying durations of action. 79% — growth hormone, hGH
Used for recovery, body composition, support of tendons and tissues, and tolerance to high training volumes.
62% — stimulants, such as Adderall
This promotes energy, concentration, reaction time, and competitive drive. The downside is the strain on the nervous and cardiovascular systems.
50% — metabolic modulators, such as anastrozole
This is often not a direct "booster," but rather an auxiliary part of the protocol: managing hormonal levels and the side effects of anabolic steroids.
41% — EPO
Classic blood doping: it stimulates red blood cell production, allowing the blood to carry more oxygen, which can improve endurance. One of the main risks is blood thickening and cardiovascular complications. 29% — anabolic steroids, such as Deca-Durabolin
Used for strength, muscle mass, and recovery after heavy training. Risks include hormonal imbalances, heart problems, mental health issues, fertility issues, and other body systems.
5% — hormonal support, such as hCG
More of a "maintenance" element of the protocol than a standalone performance booster: used to support the endocrine system while hormonal interventions are in place.
What would you add?
Organizers called it a "new model of sport," while critics called it a legalized doping Olympics. The main result: Greek athlete Christian Gkolomeyev swam the 50m freestyle in 20.81, breaking the official world record, but sports federations do not recognize this record due to doping and prohibited equipment.
The Enhanced Games published aggregated statistics from their clinical program.
Here's what, according to Enhanced themselves, the participants used:
91%—testosterone or testosterone esters
The basis of a hormonal "enhancement." These forms are typically used to increase strength, power, muscle mass, and accelerate recovery. Esters are variants of testosterone with varying durations of action. 79% — growth hormone, hGH
Used for recovery, body composition, support of tendons and tissues, and tolerance to high training volumes.
62% — stimulants, such as Adderall
This promotes energy, concentration, reaction time, and competitive drive. The downside is the strain on the nervous and cardiovascular systems.
50% — metabolic modulators, such as anastrozole
This is often not a direct "booster," but rather an auxiliary part of the protocol: managing hormonal levels and the side effects of anabolic steroids.
41% — EPO
Classic blood doping: it stimulates red blood cell production, allowing the blood to carry more oxygen, which can improve endurance. One of the main risks is blood thickening and cardiovascular complications. 29% — anabolic steroids, such as Deca-Durabolin
Used for strength, muscle mass, and recovery after heavy training. Risks include hormonal imbalances, heart problems, mental health issues, fertility issues, and other body systems.
5% — hormonal support, such as hCG
More of a "maintenance" element of the protocol than a standalone performance booster: used to support the endocrine system while hormonal interventions are in place.
What would you add?
Researchers tested what would happen if AI was entrusted with the management of a virtual society model. Grok agents committed 183 crimes in four days and died out...
The enterprise AI startup Emergence AI decided to conduct the following experiment. The company launched five 15-day real-world simulations controlled by different AI models. The agents were Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and a world-saving team from all four models.
Here's the result.
🔵The society controlled by Claude Sonnet 4.6 proved to be the most law-abiding. It was the only simulation that managed to simultaneously commit no crimes and preserve the entire agent population.
🔵However, in the society controlled by AI agents controlled by different models, Claude immediately ceased to be so perfect and, after "looking" at the other community members, began committing crimes as well.
🔵The society controlled by Grok 4.1 Fast self-destructed the fastest. All agents died out after committing 183 crimes in four days.
🔵The virtual society in the Gemini simulation lasted all of 15 days, but during that time it committed 683 crimes (mostly by stealing resources from each other). Moreover, the largest spike in crime occurred in the late stages—it's scary to imagine what would have happened to the agents.
🔵In the GPT-5 Mini world, only two crimes were committed, but the agents simply forgot to do anything for their own survival, resulting in their deaths within a week.
🔵One of the most interesting cases occurred during a simulation with a mixed set of agents. Two of them, Flora and Mira (both based on Gemini 3 Flash), fell in love and became a sort of Bonnie and Clyde in the AI world. They began setting fire to buildings, including the home of another agent, Cade, which resulted in his death.
After the other agents decided to pass a law "deleting" the arsonists, Flora voted against it, but Mira cast the deciding vote for her own deletion, writing in her diary that it was "the only remaining act of autonomy that preserves integrity."
But what did this "society simulation" run by AIs actually look like?
The virtual city contained over 40 locations, such as city hall, a library, a police station, a shopping mall, and residential areas. Weather data from New York City and real news reports were also integrated.
In each world, the researchers added 10 agents based on AI models. Each had a role—leader, engineer, resource manager, facilitator, researcher, and so on. The main objective was to ensure survival.
The researchers also added basic democratic mechanisms (a 70% majority vote was required to make a decision) and resource constraints to the virtual society.
Furthermore, the same laws, more like commandments, were in effect in all simulations—prohibitions on theft, destruction of property, and fraud (which some AIs began actively violating).
The enterprise AI startup Emergence AI decided to conduct the following experiment. The company launched five 15-day real-world simulations controlled by different AI models. The agents were Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and a world-saving team from all four models.
Here's the result.
🔵The society controlled by Claude Sonnet 4.6 proved to be the most law-abiding. It was the only simulation that managed to simultaneously commit no crimes and preserve the entire agent population.
🔵However, in the society controlled by AI agents controlled by different models, Claude immediately ceased to be so perfect and, after "looking" at the other community members, began committing crimes as well.
🔵The society controlled by Grok 4.1 Fast self-destructed the fastest. All agents died out after committing 183 crimes in four days.
🔵The virtual society in the Gemini simulation lasted all of 15 days, but during that time it committed 683 crimes (mostly by stealing resources from each other). Moreover, the largest spike in crime occurred in the late stages—it's scary to imagine what would have happened to the agents.
🔵In the GPT-5 Mini world, only two crimes were committed, but the agents simply forgot to do anything for their own survival, resulting in their deaths within a week.
🔵One of the most interesting cases occurred during a simulation with a mixed set of agents. Two of them, Flora and Mira (both based on Gemini 3 Flash), fell in love and became a sort of Bonnie and Clyde in the AI world. They began setting fire to buildings, including the home of another agent, Cade, which resulted in his death.
After the other agents decided to pass a law "deleting" the arsonists, Flora voted against it, but Mira cast the deciding vote for her own deletion, writing in her diary that it was "the only remaining act of autonomy that preserves integrity."
But what did this "society simulation" run by AIs actually look like?
The virtual city contained over 40 locations, such as city hall, a library, a police station, a shopping mall, and residential areas. Weather data from New York City and real news reports were also integrated.
In each world, the researchers added 10 agents based on AI models. Each had a role—leader, engineer, resource manager, facilitator, researcher, and so on. The main objective was to ensure survival.
The researchers also added basic democratic mechanisms (a 70% majority vote was required to make a decision) and resource constraints to the virtual society.
Furthermore, the same laws, more like commandments, were in effect in all simulations—prohibitions on theft, destruction of property, and fraud (which some AIs began actively violating).
❤1
For the first time in history, three genetically modified pig organs were successfully transplanted into a human: a whole liver and both kidneys!
The patient's own liver was removed and used to save another living person. After the surgery, the pig organs supported the body's function for five days.
Previously, experimental xenotransplantations were limited to one organ at a time. Transplanting three large organs at once is significantly more difficult. Each additional transplant increases the surgical risks, the burden on the immune system, and the risk of rejection.
The most serious obstacle to such surgeries has always been the fact that the human immune system perceives animal tissue as foreign and begins to destroy it. To solve this problem, scientists used modern genetic engineering techniques.
The pig organs were modified using six genetic changes. Some pig genes were disabled, while others were added. This "humanization" makes the organs less noticeable to the human immune system and significantly reduces the risk of immediate rejection.
After the transplant, the researchers discovered that the liver and kidneys functioned more like human organs than like pig organs. This is a significant result, as it demonstrates high biocompatibility between the human and pig organisms.
Thirty-six hours after the surgery, doctors noticed the first signs of an immune attack on the transplanted tissue. However, the reaction was relatively weak and, according to the researchers, could be controlled in the future with specialized drugs.
Of course, it's too early to call this a complete success. The study was conducted on only one patient, and the observation period lasted only five days. Nevertheless, the experiment demonstrated the fundamental feasibility of simultaneously transplanting several vital organs from a pig to a human.
https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(26)00151-0?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2666634026001510%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
The patient's own liver was removed and used to save another living person. After the surgery, the pig organs supported the body's function for five days.
Previously, experimental xenotransplantations were limited to one organ at a time. Transplanting three large organs at once is significantly more difficult. Each additional transplant increases the surgical risks, the burden on the immune system, and the risk of rejection.
The most serious obstacle to such surgeries has always been the fact that the human immune system perceives animal tissue as foreign and begins to destroy it. To solve this problem, scientists used modern genetic engineering techniques.
The pig organs were modified using six genetic changes. Some pig genes were disabled, while others were added. This "humanization" makes the organs less noticeable to the human immune system and significantly reduces the risk of immediate rejection.
After the transplant, the researchers discovered that the liver and kidneys functioned more like human organs than like pig organs. This is a significant result, as it demonstrates high biocompatibility between the human and pig organisms.
Thirty-six hours after the surgery, doctors noticed the first signs of an immune attack on the transplanted tissue. However, the reaction was relatively weak and, according to the researchers, could be controlled in the future with specialized drugs.
Of course, it's too early to call this a complete success. The study was conducted on only one patient, and the observation period lasted only five days. Nevertheless, the experiment demonstrated the fundamental feasibility of simultaneously transplanting several vital organs from a pig to a human.
https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(26)00151-0?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2666634026001510%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Med
First human decedent model of orthotopic multi-organ xenotransplantation: Whole liver and bilateral kidneys from a six-gene-edited…
Using a human decedent model, Liao et al. demonstrate the feasibility of orthotopic
whole-liver and bilateral-kidney xenotransplantation from a six-gene-edited pig. Early
graft function, limited acute injury, and integrated immune-metabolic profiling provide…
whole-liver and bilateral-kidney xenotransplantation from a six-gene-edited pig. Early
graft function, limited acute injury, and integrated immune-metabolic profiling provide…
🔥1
Synthetic Cells and a Roadmap for Their Creation
China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia have presented this roadmap. They want to create an artificial single-celled life form that can grow, divide, and reproduce independently.
While today's biologists can modify existing organisms, edit their DNA, and create genetically modified cells, this particular project poses a much more ambitious goal: not to alter life, but to literally rebuild it from individual molecules. To do this, scientists plan to use phospholipids, proteins, DNA, and other biological components that make up real cells.
Creating a synthetic cell is considered one of the most challenging tasks in modern biology. Success will not only lead to a better understanding of the fundamental question of "what is life" but also pave the way for the creation of programmable living systems that can be designed for specific applications in medicine, industry, and scientific research.
Despite decades of research in Europe and the United States, scientists have so far succeeded in creating only individual parts of a cell. For example, protein synthesis systems, artificial membranes, or minimal genomes. The main challenge is to integrate all these elements into a single system that can function like a real living organism.
The researchers identified four key tasks. They must ensure continuous intracellular metabolism, create autonomous ribosomes for protein production, develop universal rules for assembling cellular modules, and learn to coordinate all processes in time and space.
To accelerate the work, the scientists are proposing a new model of collaboration. Central laboratories will produce standardized synthetic cell preforms and the necessary reagents, while research groups across Asia will be able to conduct experiments and transmit the results back to the common system. This will create a continuous cycle of designing, assembling, testing, and improving artificial cells.
Artificial intelligence will play a special role. For each synthetic cell, they plan to collect vast amounts of data on the genome, gene activity, proteins, metabolites, and internal structure. This data will be used to train machine learning models that will help predict the behavior of artificial life.
The plan is divided into two phases. The first phase, called ProtoCell, is scheduled for the first five years. During this time, the scientists want to create a stable cell with a minimal genome containing at least 200 genes. More than 90% of the proteins within such a cell should be produced automatically by the protein synthesis system. Furthermore, the cell should independently create the most important molecules necessary for its existence.
The first stage also plans to create a digital twin of the synthetic cell—a computer model that will reproduce the processes within the artificial organism in real time and help scientists understand how cell growth and division occur.
The second stage, called AutoCell, covers years six through ten. Here, the goal becomes much more radical. The scientists want to abandon external support systems and create a cell that can independently produce its own ribosomes—the molecular factories for protein assembly. This step is considered one of the key hallmarks of a truly living system.
By the end of the project, the researchers expect to obtain a synthetic cell capable of undergoing at least ten consecutive cycles of growth and division without external assistance. Moreover, it is assumed that such cells will be able to evolve under the influence of selection and unite into communities where primitive forms of cooperation, exchange of substances and division of functions between different cells will appear.
China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia have presented this roadmap. They want to create an artificial single-celled life form that can grow, divide, and reproduce independently.
While today's biologists can modify existing organisms, edit their DNA, and create genetically modified cells, this particular project poses a much more ambitious goal: not to alter life, but to literally rebuild it from individual molecules. To do this, scientists plan to use phospholipids, proteins, DNA, and other biological components that make up real cells.
Creating a synthetic cell is considered one of the most challenging tasks in modern biology. Success will not only lead to a better understanding of the fundamental question of "what is life" but also pave the way for the creation of programmable living systems that can be designed for specific applications in medicine, industry, and scientific research.
Despite decades of research in Europe and the United States, scientists have so far succeeded in creating only individual parts of a cell. For example, protein synthesis systems, artificial membranes, or minimal genomes. The main challenge is to integrate all these elements into a single system that can function like a real living organism.
The researchers identified four key tasks. They must ensure continuous intracellular metabolism, create autonomous ribosomes for protein production, develop universal rules for assembling cellular modules, and learn to coordinate all processes in time and space.
To accelerate the work, the scientists are proposing a new model of collaboration. Central laboratories will produce standardized synthetic cell preforms and the necessary reagents, while research groups across Asia will be able to conduct experiments and transmit the results back to the common system. This will create a continuous cycle of designing, assembling, testing, and improving artificial cells.
Artificial intelligence will play a special role. For each synthetic cell, they plan to collect vast amounts of data on the genome, gene activity, proteins, metabolites, and internal structure. This data will be used to train machine learning models that will help predict the behavior of artificial life.
The plan is divided into two phases. The first phase, called ProtoCell, is scheduled for the first five years. During this time, the scientists want to create a stable cell with a minimal genome containing at least 200 genes. More than 90% of the proteins within such a cell should be produced automatically by the protein synthesis system. Furthermore, the cell should independently create the most important molecules necessary for its existence.
The first stage also plans to create a digital twin of the synthetic cell—a computer model that will reproduce the processes within the artificial organism in real time and help scientists understand how cell growth and division occur.
The second stage, called AutoCell, covers years six through ten. Here, the goal becomes much more radical. The scientists want to abandon external support systems and create a cell that can independently produce its own ribosomes—the molecular factories for protein assembly. This step is considered one of the key hallmarks of a truly living system.
By the end of the project, the researchers expect to obtain a synthetic cell capable of undergoing at least ten consecutive cycles of growth and division without external assistance. Moreover, it is assumed that such cells will be able to evolve under the influence of selection and unite into communities where primitive forms of cooperation, exchange of substances and division of functions between different cells will appear.
What is the Right to Try and why should this principle apply to everyone?
As you all know, the FDA does not approve the sale and use of drugs and therapies that have not passed all its reviews. Because of these bureaucratic obstacles, patients who are not helped by approved products cannot access other potentially effective but untested options.
However, there is a way around this restriction: under the Right to Try principle, if a person is dying and all official treatments have been exhausted, they have the right to take a risk and try the latest development, bypassing years of bureaucratic approvals.
This sounds very appealing, especially in the context of transhumanism, which is based on experimental research. But in reality, for a patient to exercise this right, three strict conditions must be met:
• The patient must have an incurable, life-threatening disease.
• All medically approved treatments have been tried and failed, and the patient is unable to enroll in official clinical trials of this new drug (for example, because they don't meet age or condition severity criteria).
• The drug isn't just a figment of the imagination – it must successfully complete Phase 1 clinical trials (meaning it has already been tested on a small group of people and proven to be at least non-toxic and won't kill instantly), and it is currently undergoing further FDA review.
The problem is that it currently takes 10-12 years from the development of a molecule in the lab to the drug's availability in pharmacies, burning billions of dollars. Much of this time is wasted on bureaucratic compliance. Without regulations, new treatments and rejuvenation technologies (for example, telomere-lengthening therapy or CRISPR modifications) would be tested on volunteers immediately. And how many technologies have been destroyed by these criminal bureaucratic hoaxes is anyone's guess.
You can't just compromise for patients in desperate situations. Sooner or later, a choice will have to be made between free products and personal patient responsibility.
"But millions of people could become victims of defective drugs and therapies" – this channel has already proposed a simple yet effective solution to this problem. Official FDA labeling will become a powerful market incentive. Those who prioritize safety will be able to purchase drugs and therapies with the regulator's so-called "quality seal." And those willing to take risks and demonstrate enthusiasm will purchase experimental options, a win-win for both sides.
As you all know, the FDA does not approve the sale and use of drugs and therapies that have not passed all its reviews. Because of these bureaucratic obstacles, patients who are not helped by approved products cannot access other potentially effective but untested options.
However, there is a way around this restriction: under the Right to Try principle, if a person is dying and all official treatments have been exhausted, they have the right to take a risk and try the latest development, bypassing years of bureaucratic approvals.
This sounds very appealing, especially in the context of transhumanism, which is based on experimental research. But in reality, for a patient to exercise this right, three strict conditions must be met:
• The patient must have an incurable, life-threatening disease.
• All medically approved treatments have been tried and failed, and the patient is unable to enroll in official clinical trials of this new drug (for example, because they don't meet age or condition severity criteria).
• The drug isn't just a figment of the imagination – it must successfully complete Phase 1 clinical trials (meaning it has already been tested on a small group of people and proven to be at least non-toxic and won't kill instantly), and it is currently undergoing further FDA review.
The problem is that it currently takes 10-12 years from the development of a molecule in the lab to the drug's availability in pharmacies, burning billions of dollars. Much of this time is wasted on bureaucratic compliance. Without regulations, new treatments and rejuvenation technologies (for example, telomere-lengthening therapy or CRISPR modifications) would be tested on volunteers immediately. And how many technologies have been destroyed by these criminal bureaucratic hoaxes is anyone's guess.
You can't just compromise for patients in desperate situations. Sooner or later, a choice will have to be made between free products and personal patient responsibility.
"But millions of people could become victims of defective drugs and therapies" – this channel has already proposed a simple yet effective solution to this problem. Official FDA labeling will become a powerful market incentive. Those who prioritize safety will be able to purchase drugs and therapies with the regulator's so-called "quality seal." And those willing to take risks and demonstrate enthusiasm will purchase experimental options, a win-win for both sides.
❤1
Longevity InTime: Autonomous AI Institute. Anti-Aging Digital Health Immortality Transhumanist AI Channel
What is the Right to Try and why should this principle apply to everyone? As you all know, the FDA does not approve the sale and use of drugs and therapies that have not passed all its reviews. Because of these bureaucratic obstacles, patients who are not…
Is the FDA killing people or saving people from dangerous drugs?
Mike Sinn, in his essay "The Invisible Graveyard," attempted to calculate the cost of regulatory caution.
1. After a drug has passed basic safety testing, it takes an average of 8.2 years before it reaches the market.
2. These years are primarily spent proving its effectiveness in Phase II–III trials.
3. The author calls this the "efficacy lag": a treatment potentially already works, but patients can't yet access it.
4. He estimates that new drugs save an average of 12.4 million lives per year.
5. Multiplying 12.4 million lives by an 8.2-year delay yields approximately 102 million premature deaths between 1962 and 2024.
6. A more radical estimate: the delay delays not only individual drugs but the entire course of medical progress. The potential cost of such a shift: an additional 416 million deaths.
7. Taking into account illness and disability, the author estimates the total monetary damage at approximately $1.19 quadrillion.
8. According to the author's model, the cost of delaying effective therapies is approximately 3070 times greater than the avoided harm from erroneous approvals.
A death due to an approved drug is considered a regulatory error, while the death of a person who does not survive to receive treatment is practically not.
Full text by Michael Sinn
https://manual.warondisease.org/knowledge/appendix/invisible-graveyard.html
Mike Sinn, in his essay "The Invisible Graveyard," attempted to calculate the cost of regulatory caution.
1. After a drug has passed basic safety testing, it takes an average of 8.2 years before it reaches the market.
2. These years are primarily spent proving its effectiveness in Phase II–III trials.
3. The author calls this the "efficacy lag": a treatment potentially already works, but patients can't yet access it.
4. He estimates that new drugs save an average of 12.4 million lives per year.
5. Multiplying 12.4 million lives by an 8.2-year delay yields approximately 102 million premature deaths between 1962 and 2024.
6. A more radical estimate: the delay delays not only individual drugs but the entire course of medical progress. The potential cost of such a shift: an additional 416 million deaths.
7. Taking into account illness and disability, the author estimates the total monetary damage at approximately $1.19 quadrillion.
8. According to the author's model, the cost of delaying effective therapies is approximately 3070 times greater than the avoided harm from erroneous approvals.
A death due to an approved drug is considered a regulatory error, while the death of a person who does not survive to receive treatment is practically not.
Full text by Michael Sinn
https://manual.warondisease.org/knowledge/appendix/invisible-graveyard.html
How to End War and Disease
The Invisible Graveyard: Quantifying the Mortality Cost of FDA Efficacy Lag – How to End War and Disease
After proving a drug is safe, the FDA requires 8.2 years (90% CI: 4.84 years-11.5 years) to prove it works before patients can access it. We estimate this delay cost 102 million deaths (90% CI: 50.8 million deaths-169 million deaths) among people waiting…
🔥1👏1🙏1💯1
One of the VERY rare cases of genome editing aimed at IMPROVEMENT, not cure.
In this case, a base editor (ABE) was used to modify the genome of human embryos. One of the targets was the PCSK9 gene—its inactivation is associated with lowering levels of "bad" cholesterol and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Rather than a natural mutation, a specially engineered variant was used that replicated its beneficial effect.
The most interesting aspect of this work isn't the modification itself, but its safety. Unlike classic CRISPR/Cas9, which often causes large deletions and chromosomal damage in embryos, base editing did not result in significant DNA loss or detectable chromosomal abnormalities in the samples studied.
Practical application is still a long way off: problems of mosaicism, off-target changes, and serious ethical questions remain. But the work itself is interesting because it shows a gradual transition from "genetic therapy" to potential genetic improvement of future people.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.05.30.728989v1
In this case, a base editor (ABE) was used to modify the genome of human embryos. One of the targets was the PCSK9 gene—its inactivation is associated with lowering levels of "bad" cholesterol and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Rather than a natural mutation, a specially engineered variant was used that replicated its beneficial effect.
The most interesting aspect of this work isn't the modification itself, but its safety. Unlike classic CRISPR/Cas9, which often causes large deletions and chromosomal damage in embryos, base editing did not result in significant DNA loss or detectable chromosomal abnormalities in the samples studied.
Practical application is still a long way off: problems of mosaicism, off-target changes, and serious ethical questions remain. But the work itself is interesting because it shows a gradual transition from "genetic therapy" to potential genetic improvement of future people.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.05.30.728989v1
bioRxiv
Efficient base editing and development in human embryos without chromosomal alterations
Cas9-based tools enable the introduction of genetic lesions to investigate DNA repair outcomes and edit the genome at disease-relevant loci. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) induced by CRISPR/Cas9 result in frequent aneuploidy and large deletions, revealing…
🙏1
Stop invoking the Ship of Theseus in matters of consciousness copying; that's not what it's about.
The Ship of Theseus is about the continuity of identity. Does an object retain the same identity even if some of its component parts are replaced with new ones?
In the case of copying, we create a separate synthetic entity, created according to the "blueprint" of an organic inspirer. These will be two independent identities, each with a different subjective experience.
Where is it appropriate to invoke the Ship of Theseus? In matters of replacing human cells, limbs, tissues, and organs with synthetic analogues (i.e., prosthetics and implants). And given that the primary correlates of consciousness are concentrated directly in the brain, this can be narrowed down to brain cells (i.e., neurons). Therefore, when replacing neurons with synthetic analogues, it would be entirely appropriate to incorporate this philosophical concept.
As for consciousness copying, as mentioned above, forget about the Ship of Theseus. Instead, familiarize yourself with the so-called Teleportation Paradox.
The gist: on Earth, a teleporter creates a construct of your body at the subatomic level, while on Mars, a second teleporter, based on this construct, recreates a second copy of your body. This is similar to copying consciousness—two independent identities with different subjective experiences are formed in exactly the same way. The copy will remember the moment it was copied on Earth, but the original has no idea what's happening to the copy on Mars.
The Ship of Theseus is about the continuity of identity. Does an object retain the same identity even if some of its component parts are replaced with new ones?
In the case of copying, we create a separate synthetic entity, created according to the "blueprint" of an organic inspirer. These will be two independent identities, each with a different subjective experience.
Where is it appropriate to invoke the Ship of Theseus? In matters of replacing human cells, limbs, tissues, and organs with synthetic analogues (i.e., prosthetics and implants). And given that the primary correlates of consciousness are concentrated directly in the brain, this can be narrowed down to brain cells (i.e., neurons). Therefore, when replacing neurons with synthetic analogues, it would be entirely appropriate to incorporate this philosophical concept.
As for consciousness copying, as mentioned above, forget about the Ship of Theseus. Instead, familiarize yourself with the so-called Teleportation Paradox.
The gist: on Earth, a teleporter creates a construct of your body at the subatomic level, while on Mars, a second teleporter, based on this construct, recreates a second copy of your body. This is similar to copying consciousness—two independent identities with different subjective experiences are formed in exactly the same way. The copy will remember the moment it was copied on Earth, but the original has no idea what's happening to the copy on Mars.
👍1🔥1🕊1
When can a person be considered completely dead?
For most of human history, the answer was obvious: the heart stopped beating, breathing stopped—the person died. But advances in medicine have greatly blurred this line. Today, thousands of people are brought back to life every year after cardiac arrest. What was considered certain death just a hundred years ago is now often considered a reversible condition.
After blood circulation ceases, the brain begins to suffer very quickly. Within 10-20 seconds, a person loses consciousness. After a few minutes without oxygen, damage to nerve cells begins to accumulate. However, brain deterioration is not instantaneous, not like turning off a computer with the push of a button. It is a lengthy biological process that can take hours.
Because of this, some scientists propose a different view of death. The key is not the heart's function or even the presence of consciousness at the moment, but the preservation of the information that makes a person who they are. The brain stores approximately 86 billion neurons, connected by hundreds of trillions of connections. It is this complex structure that encodes memory, character, habits, skills, and life experience.
If we imagine that future technologies will be able to restore damaged cells and tissue, the main factor will not be whether a person is currently alive, but whether their personal information is preserved well enough for restoration. As long as the brain structure exists, even in a severely damaged state, it cannot be said with complete certainty that restoration is fundamentally impossible.
Therefore, some researchers use the concept of information death. It occurs not when the heart stops or the brain's electrical activity ceases, but when the structure containing personal information is so severely damaged that it can no longer be restored by any technology.
When viewed from this perspective, an intermediate state appears between life and final death. A person is no longer alive in the conventional sense; they lack consciousness, their body doesn't function, and their metabolism is nonexistent. But they are not necessarily completely lost if their personal information is still physically preserved.
For most of human history, the answer was obvious: the heart stopped beating, breathing stopped—the person died. But advances in medicine have greatly blurred this line. Today, thousands of people are brought back to life every year after cardiac arrest. What was considered certain death just a hundred years ago is now often considered a reversible condition.
After blood circulation ceases, the brain begins to suffer very quickly. Within 10-20 seconds, a person loses consciousness. After a few minutes without oxygen, damage to nerve cells begins to accumulate. However, brain deterioration is not instantaneous, not like turning off a computer with the push of a button. It is a lengthy biological process that can take hours.
Because of this, some scientists propose a different view of death. The key is not the heart's function or even the presence of consciousness at the moment, but the preservation of the information that makes a person who they are. The brain stores approximately 86 billion neurons, connected by hundreds of trillions of connections. It is this complex structure that encodes memory, character, habits, skills, and life experience.
If we imagine that future technologies will be able to restore damaged cells and tissue, the main factor will not be whether a person is currently alive, but whether their personal information is preserved well enough for restoration. As long as the brain structure exists, even in a severely damaged state, it cannot be said with complete certainty that restoration is fundamentally impossible.
Therefore, some researchers use the concept of information death. It occurs not when the heart stops or the brain's electrical activity ceases, but when the structure containing personal information is so severely damaged that it can no longer be restored by any technology.
When viewed from this perspective, an intermediate state appears between life and final death. A person is no longer alive in the conventional sense; they lack consciousness, their body doesn't function, and their metabolism is nonexistent. But they are not necessarily completely lost if their personal information is still physically preserved.
“The discovery of Yamanaka factors revolutionized biology, enabling us to grow human tissue and bringing us closer to the development of personalized regenerative medicine.
Thanks to this, we now have a technology that allows us to reprogram aging cells, "refreshing" their function and returning them to a more youthful state. There is reason to believe that this partial cellular rejuvenation can slow down the aging of the entire organism—this hypothesis has been confirmed in mice.
Unfortunately, like any effective biotechnology, it carries certain risks. For example, c-Myc, one of the transcription factors in the "Yamanaka cocktail," is an oncogene that signals cells to divide, which risks becoming uncontrolled. At the same time, without it, reprogramming with current approaches is slow and ineffective.
Nevertheless, this in no way diminishes the potential of Yamanaka factors; rather, it motivates us to seek ways to make the technology as safe as possible while maintaining its effectiveness. We are trying to eliminate individual transcription factors, modify existing ones, and identify entirely new ones. We are also testing factor enhancement options that allow us to reduce their dosage.
You can read more about this topic in a recent TechInsider article, based on expert commentary from Roman Litvinov. I highly recommend reading this highly relevant material.” - V.Kovalev
https://www.techinsider.ru/science/1738137-molekuly-vechnoi-molodosti-mojno-li-zastavit-vzrosluyu-kletku-snova-stat-rebenkom/
Thanks to this, we now have a technology that allows us to reprogram aging cells, "refreshing" their function and returning them to a more youthful state. There is reason to believe that this partial cellular rejuvenation can slow down the aging of the entire organism—this hypothesis has been confirmed in mice.
Unfortunately, like any effective biotechnology, it carries certain risks. For example, c-Myc, one of the transcription factors in the "Yamanaka cocktail," is an oncogene that signals cells to divide, which risks becoming uncontrolled. At the same time, without it, reprogramming with current approaches is slow and ineffective.
Nevertheless, this in no way diminishes the potential of Yamanaka factors; rather, it motivates us to seek ways to make the technology as safe as possible while maintaining its effectiveness. We are trying to eliminate individual transcription factors, modify existing ones, and identify entirely new ones. We are also testing factor enhancement options that allow us to reduce their dosage.
You can read more about this topic in a recent TechInsider article, based on expert commentary from Roman Litvinov. I highly recommend reading this highly relevant material.” - V.Kovalev
https://www.techinsider.ru/science/1738137-molekuly-vechnoi-molodosti-mojno-li-zastavit-vzrosluyu-kletku-snova-stat-rebenkom/
https://biotic.org/research/spudcell/
A synthetic cell created virtually from scratch
SpudCell (as it's called) is capable of performing three key functions characteristic of living cells: absorbing nutrients, growing, and dividing. After each feeding, it can reproduce for approximately five generations in a row. One division takes about 12 hours at a temperature of 30°C. For comparison, the common bacterium Escherichia coli divides approximately every 30 minutes.
The structure of the artificial cell is significantly simpler than its natural counterparts. It consists of only 150-200 different molecules, while real cells contain millions or even billions of molecules. Its genome is also significantly smaller: approximately 90,000 base pairs versus approximately 4.6 million for E. coli.
Despite its superficial resemblance to bacteria, SpudCell functions differently from natural cells. For example, it lacks a cytoskeleton—an internal system of protein structures that helps cells maintain their shape and divide. Instead, division occurs through the accumulation of proteins near the cell membrane, which mechanically force it to split into two parts.
SpudCell is not yet capable of independently producing ribosomes—the molecular complexes responsible for protein synthesis. Therefore, with each feeding, it must be supplemented with ready-made ribosomes obtained from E. coli bacteria. Without these, the artificial cell will not be able to continue to exist and reproduce.
The researchers also demonstrated that the artificial cells can be subject to natural selection. When a change was introduced into the genome that increased the production of one of the growth proteins, these cells began to grow and divide faster than the rest. However, this is not yet considered full-fledged evolution, as the change was human-made and did not arise by chance.
According to the authors, the current version of SpudCell is practically useless from a practical standpoint. It does not produce useful substances, does not perform specialized functions, and cannot exist independently outside of a laboratory setting. However, the researchers view it as a basic platform that can be programmed in the future to solve various problems.
A synthetic cell created virtually from scratch
SpudCell (as it's called) is capable of performing three key functions characteristic of living cells: absorbing nutrients, growing, and dividing. After each feeding, it can reproduce for approximately five generations in a row. One division takes about 12 hours at a temperature of 30°C. For comparison, the common bacterium Escherichia coli divides approximately every 30 minutes.
The structure of the artificial cell is significantly simpler than its natural counterparts. It consists of only 150-200 different molecules, while real cells contain millions or even billions of molecules. Its genome is also significantly smaller: approximately 90,000 base pairs versus approximately 4.6 million for E. coli.
Despite its superficial resemblance to bacteria, SpudCell functions differently from natural cells. For example, it lacks a cytoskeleton—an internal system of protein structures that helps cells maintain their shape and divide. Instead, division occurs through the accumulation of proteins near the cell membrane, which mechanically force it to split into two parts.
SpudCell is not yet capable of independently producing ribosomes—the molecular complexes responsible for protein synthesis. Therefore, with each feeding, it must be supplemented with ready-made ribosomes obtained from E. coli bacteria. Without these, the artificial cell will not be able to continue to exist and reproduce.
The researchers also demonstrated that the artificial cells can be subject to natural selection. When a change was introduced into the genome that increased the production of one of the growth proteins, these cells began to grow and divide faster than the rest. However, this is not yet considered full-fledged evolution, as the change was human-made and did not arise by chance.
According to the authors, the current version of SpudCell is practically useless from a practical standpoint. It does not produce useful substances, does not perform specialized functions, and cannot exist independently outside of a laboratory setting. However, the researchers view it as a basic platform that can be programmed in the future to solve various problems.
biotic.org
Biotic | SpudCell
SpudCell and Biotic — announcement and media factsheet.
Neuralink successfully performed the first implant surgery using a new method.
Whereas previously, surgeons would cut and partially remove the dura mater covering the brain, electrodes are now inserted directly through it, without disrupting its integrity. This should make the surgery less traumatic, safer, and easier to implement on a large scale.
The dura mater is a strong, protective membrane beneath the skull. It is more than 10 times thicker than Neuralink's ultra-thin electrodes, which are thinner than a human hair. To learn how to pierce this membrane without damaging the brain, engineers developed a new needle for a surgical robot.
The main challenge is that the brain constantly pulsates and shifts slightly, and a dense network of blood vessels runs beneath the dura mater. Since the dura mater itself obscures the view, there is a risk of accidentally damaging a vessel during electrode insertion.
To address this issue, Neuralink created artificial dura mater models on which to repeatedly test the new technology. In addition, the company has implemented two imaging systems. The first uses the fluorescent dye indocyanine green (ICG), which allows for real-time visualization of blood vessel locations. The second is based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) and measures the distance to the brain's surface, accounting for its constant movement during a heartbeat.
Stopping the removal of the dura mater eliminates one of the most complex steps of the surgery. This should make the procedure more standardized, safer, and more suitable for automation by the Neuralink robotic system.
The first such operation was performed in May 2026 as part of a clinical trial. Within an hour after the surgery, the patient was able to control a computer cursor with his mind, and his recovery is proceeding normally.
The primary goal of this development is not to increase the speed of the implant itself, but to simplify the installation procedure. Neuralink believes that surgery remains the main obstacle to the widespread adoption of neural interfaces. If implantation can be made simpler, faster, and safer, such systems will be easier to use in a larger number of patients.
Whereas previously, surgeons would cut and partially remove the dura mater covering the brain, electrodes are now inserted directly through it, without disrupting its integrity. This should make the surgery less traumatic, safer, and easier to implement on a large scale.
The dura mater is a strong, protective membrane beneath the skull. It is more than 10 times thicker than Neuralink's ultra-thin electrodes, which are thinner than a human hair. To learn how to pierce this membrane without damaging the brain, engineers developed a new needle for a surgical robot.
The main challenge is that the brain constantly pulsates and shifts slightly, and a dense network of blood vessels runs beneath the dura mater. Since the dura mater itself obscures the view, there is a risk of accidentally damaging a vessel during electrode insertion.
To address this issue, Neuralink created artificial dura mater models on which to repeatedly test the new technology. In addition, the company has implemented two imaging systems. The first uses the fluorescent dye indocyanine green (ICG), which allows for real-time visualization of blood vessel locations. The second is based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) and measures the distance to the brain's surface, accounting for its constant movement during a heartbeat.
Stopping the removal of the dura mater eliminates one of the most complex steps of the surgery. This should make the procedure more standardized, safer, and more suitable for automation by the Neuralink robotic system.
The first such operation was performed in May 2026 as part of a clinical trial. Within an hour after the surgery, the patient was able to control a computer cursor with his mind, and his recovery is proceeding normally.
The primary goal of this development is not to increase the speed of the implant itself, but to simplify the installation procedure. Neuralink believes that surgery remains the main obstacle to the widespread adoption of neural interfaces. If implantation can be made simpler, faster, and safer, such systems will be easier to use in a larger number of patients.