If one were to replace each of their cells, one by one, with an artificial nanomachine...

if one were to replace each of their cells, one by one, with an artificial nanomachine, at what point would they no longer be considered a living being?

At the 512895215325th cell

omg this is so stupid why waste your time making this post and thread

>this is so stupid
no u

id assume to start a conversation about humanity and where the line is between spirit and matter... i say spirit in the sense of that part humanity that doesnt physically exist.

your fucking dumb for post in a thread you thought was stupid to call it stupid

pretty incoherent, but it sounds like maybe there's a thought hidden in there somewhere.

try posting less, your fucking ugly thread is a piece of shit.

thanks for contributing to the discussion

thanks man. not my thread and first post on this board ever but will do.

lol at thread being ugly but, i assume, 2/6 posts are you being a fucking idiot. thats 1/3 of the thread being made of your negativity. so you should post less as well

It wouldn't stop being a living being. The support system for something like that would be very similar to what we already use. You'd still be taking in biomatter as energy & part replacement, but you may also have other options for things like electric or solar. It is were a perfect system then it would work fine. Otherwise, you may end up with a stagnated system that doesn't do well with environmental changes. Humans change all the way down to the DNA level and probably further with only environmental and social changes (stresses.) That may not occur with a nanomachine system. but, if you want perfect, they it would also perform those things, if that is what is desired for the thought experiement.

...

it's clearly a science discussion, why are you linking those boards

>asking a philosophical question on the science board
these spergs aren't going to help you with that

...

>no philosophy board

...

at none of the points

As long as it behaves in a human way, it's human

by that logic, a human that doesn't behave like a human isn't human

>If A then B
>Not A therefore Not B
You should rethink.

Ignore this post. Do not read.

As said that's pretty logical, and that makes sense when you think about it, there aren't much things that describes humanity other than having a human behavior, at a person's scale.

Life is an outdated concept. There is no difference between the statements "everything is alive" and "nothing is alive." The concept only has utility in some arbitrarily defined system, and even then it's questionable as a cognitive or descriptive tool.

so you wouldn't mind if someone killed you right now?

so you're saying
>a human that doesn't behave like a human isn't human
is correct? do you know how wrong you are?

No but I guess you're going to enlighten me

fpbp

You're not a living being now.

DUDE SHIP OF THESEUS LMAO!

you fucking goon.

pretty sure they're the goons

after the cells are replaced that make humans human (enzymes, reproductive cells, white blood cells, and anything else used to further the growth of life).