= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on MIT Technology Review - Michael Hendricks opinion on Cryonics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (20)
I don't know if this is true.
http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/ http://rebrn.com/re/theseus-body-is-there-any-part-of-a-human-that-is-cellularly-or-873979/ http://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2012/feb/23/brain-new-cells-adult-neurogenesis All 3 links suggest the opposite.
Can You provide a source for this claim?
BR
The claim isn't that the cells are constantly replaced, but that the atoms are; see e.g. this blog post as an example of the claim being made. [EDITED to add:] More specifically, an example where the claim is made and "new cells" and "new atoms" are explicitly distinguished.
I have found this reddit discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1q16hw/im_32_is_there_a_single_cell_or_even_molecule/
and there are some pro and contra comments in there about atoms and molecules of the nerve cells. Probably I need a lot more reading on this subject , txs for the guidance.
BR