Scientists Are Giving Dead Brains New Life
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Imagine that you are a billionaire. Money is absolutely no object at all. And yet, you are in an accident. A car crash for example, your body was gravely injured but your head intact. You are flown to a facility but die on route.
This technology is a get out of jail card. What's interesting to me, is where is the cut off point. Right now I assume its within minutes? But one day it could be a week? Your head in a jar until they either create a new body for you or find a donor body?
Then there is this:
> Consider, Greely suggested, the case of the Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero and his associate, the Chinese scientist Xiaoping Ren, who claim to have transplanted a head from one cadaver to another. Undoubtedly, a scientist with fewer scruples than Sestan, fewer moral qualms about human experimentation, will emerge. “Somebody will perfuse a dead human brain, and I think it will be in an unconventional setting, not necessarily in a pure research manner,” Greely told me. “It will be somebody with a lot of money, and he’ll find a scientist willing to do it.”
Putting the current ethical concerns aside. I find this absolutely fascinating. How long until the technology is perfected and some form of immortality is reached?
How would it work. Do you get to 90 years old and they pull out your brain and put it into a newer body?
Just so happens that in 50 years I'll be 90 myself. I a more ethical version of this tech is around in some form or another. I'd love another 90 years!
Oh and for over population concerns, don't worry. I'll be happy to be part of the new expedition on Titan or Ganymede or further out. :)
Could you imagine the horror of waking up and being just a head?
However I would like to think that ethical concerns would not allow this and also this research doesn't actually have this course of action in mind.
When I mean head in a jar. I meant disconnected from any machinery and placed in fluids so that no more decomposition of the brain takes place. In effect, the person is still dead. No brain activity, nothing.
However, when a "new body" is ready. This process is then performed and the person is given a chance at life again.
Keyboard not found
Press any key to continue...
>Read up on sensory deprivation tanks.
Now for an alternative history twist: the Cold War never ends, and Rudolf Hess is kept alive as a brain in a vat for thousands of years, with the Russians and the Americans continuing to take turns guarding him so that both sides can cling to that sliver of West Berlin.
As long as the brain remains a black box... never. We only understand a tiny bit how the brain works; the biggest problems are still unsolved. Even with a completely prosthetic body, your brain will eventually build up plaques and die (again).
Some people are more resistant to Alzheimers/dementia, keep enough brains alive long enough and maybe a few might have adequate plaque removal to stay sane indefinitely.
No expert here, but first you are limited by cellular decay. If we can reverse engineer the aging gene and apply it to the brain, you might be right that we can stave off cell death by a lot.
Then there's alzheimers and other forms of dementia, which the aging thing probably won't fix. Even if you cure alzheimers, you still have memory loss.
So then we'd have to invent some type of memory therapy that defrags the brain and allows consciousness to continue to access a healthy memory bank. Not sure if you'd be able to maintain new memories, slowly lose old ones, or what. But then we could preserve consciousness.
So once you perfect either controlling human memory or at least defragging it so the brain doesn't go crazy or develop dementia, you now have an immortal brain. As long as it has access to the therapy it needs, maybe could live for forever.
Am I wrong here?
My bet is that insanity will creep in almost no matter what we do. Like the theories on if we got rid of sleep. Our consciousness might have developed in a way that requires a type of balance that eternal life doesn't afford.
Even if you did some memory stuff, would the constant thread of consciousness be able to maintain over time?
I don't know but I'm 100% sure there are people willing to find out!
Does "en eternity in hell" sound exciting? Because it might be a very real possibility.
This veers into the realm of philosophy but potentially almost everything we enjoy about life may be because of our mortality, even the feeling of happiness itself may be derived from knowing that tomorrow we may be dead. An immortal existence seems so different from the human experience that I can't say that it has a high chance of being a positive thing.
>almost everything we enjoy about life may be because of our mortality
You don't know that you're mortal until you die. It makes no difference here, because even if this were true, you are already assuming you are mortal regardless of the facts, and you will continue to do so. Being immortal doesn't imply you've also reached some state of deep enlightenment about it.
Besides, you can invert this just as well: everything we enjoy about life may be dependent upon the belief that we're not going to die soon.
The title of the game/short novel comes to mind: "I Have No Mouth Yet I Must Scream."
We already know what happens to prisoners placed in solitary confinement; the effects on mental health are quite damaging over the long term. There have also been studies on partial sensory deprivation [0] and impairment of cognitive abilities and hallucinations began occurring within days. I can't find the appropriate references at the moment but total sensory deprivation, which is closest to the brain-in-a-jar scenario, is even worse than that IIRC.
[0] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/donald-o-hebb-e...
> The title of the game/short novel comes to mind: "I Have No Mouth Yet I Must Scream."
Zelazny's "Go Starless in the Night" would be more appropriate and perhaps only slightly less horrifying.
I'll point out that the current two-process model we have for sleep pushes the brain towards waking up after a while; Process C (circadian) on a periodic basis and process S after the brain's need for sleep is satisfied. That would need to be counteracted. I'll also point out that there's some evidence that even a few months of sedation will cause lasting cognitive damage, e.g. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1301372, yet sedation for years, if not decades, would be necessary. The brain is not a machine; it does not shut down when asleep or sedated.
> And you still shouldn't assume that death is preferable to solitary confinement or sensory deprivation.
It is, of course, a personal decision and it might even be said to be the ultimate personal decision. However, not understanding the implications of one's choices, as best we know them, is unwise, don't you think?
As such, there are no implication to being a brain in a vat other than the fact that you don't experience the outside world. It says nothing about what you do experience. And it certainly does not imply permanent damage in the same way that death does.
Since none of that is likely to happen here in the real world, ever, it makes far more sense to take a hard science approach based on what is known to be at least theoretically possible today.
Isn't there a real possibility that being subjected to circumstances that allow us to perceive reality, psychological trauma could result?
Or maybe every computer on Earth is right now a mind in a perpetual state of torture. I don't see how a brain in a vat shouldn't be any less objectionable, especially if we're relying on blind conjecture.
Is it? If the Mona Lisa were set on fire, there would be effectively zero hope of reconstructing it from the ashes. Can a sane original mind be reconstructed from insanity caused by severe trauma or extended sensory deprivation or dementia? There too, the pattern has been destroyed; there's effectively zero hope of restoration.
You are not. I am.
And I choose to live.
Have you ever seen firsthand a person in the final stages of Alzheimer's disease? If life is so precious to you that you are willing to exist for eternity in such a state, far be it from me to tell you otherwise.
May you enjoy the outcome of your choices.
Presuming you would actually live in such a state even - perfecting this technology will require other ground breaking research, some of which might be able to handle Alzheimer's.
Sure but questions arise:
"How much mental trauma/cognitive damage can a normal human mind sustain before it is no longer capable of comprehending its choices (or even the concept of "choice") at all?"
"Will the brain-in-a-vat scenario exceed that limit?"
> ...some of which might be able to handle Alzheimer's
As I alluded to before, is it possible to unscramble an egg?
That said, there are emerging technologies which would compliment brain preservation, such as the brain-computer interface. BCI therapies have already been effective in giving blind people sight via invasive electrodes (e.g. the work of William Dobelle). Output has also been demonstrated using BCIs.
Such a brain could interact with the world through a robotic surrogate, or have an entirely virtual interaction. Arguably, the brain in a tank may have access to a richer experience than the natural body, with synthetic sensory and motor capabilities.
It would be horrible to not be connected to your heart.
Far from me to deny you any option... I'm just saying it's far too risky for myself.
According to António Damásio our conscience and memories are part of our body - the whole of it. We aren't brains mounted on a bio-mechanical motion, sensory and life support systems.
People who lose a limb, or those who have spinal injuries go through such traumatic experiences, I can't imagine a glimpse of consciousness of a head..
That story revolves around scanning the brains of deceased humans into a computer simulation. Initially this technology is only available as a "get out of jail" card for rich people, as the scanning process and subsequent ops costs of running the simulation are, well, astronomical. Eventually the process is dumbed down to the level of a certain kind of "life insurance", and many more dead people join the simulation. That's when the floodgates open for real. I know I run the risk of spoiling the story, but I'll just say that this is one way the singularity can get started.
I have also enjoyed this unintentional easter egg - the musical artist mentioned early in the novel doesn't exist IRL, but a keen early reader has created a Spotify playlist by that name, and it's been growing steadily the past few weeks as people search to see if she is real and happen upon this. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/41rZjyFBpUFpKZdGZHbbXl?si=...
I don't recall the title but in middle school I remember reading a scifi/horrorish thriller about this exact scenario, the problem they ran into is that the brain still ages, and transplanting it into a younger body doesn't magically de-age the brain itself.
So it would likely be used on critical patients who have signed an extended organ donation pledge. Maybe. Likely some will object to any, even voluntary, form of experimentation with anyone's brain.
By the way, maintaining even a brain in cryostasis is expensive compared to such experiments.
Not really. You can maintain a brain in an LN2 tank for like $100 a year: LN2 is one of the cheapest fluids around. Very very few biology experiments come anywhere close to costs like that.
The novels are way better than the Netflix S01, which was the first book. I'm guessing there will be 2 more seasons, one for each book.
> But the pulse generator’s settings proved unsuitable for brains, which have a different flow pattern than the rest of the body. Before Sestan’s team adjusted the settings, the fluid might not completely permeate the vasculature of the organ, leaving parts of the brain essentially untreated. In such tissue, Daniele told me, “you’d end up with this sludgy, white yogurt-ish substance. It was a mess.” Conversely, if the pressure was too high, “the brain could just physically not stand it.” The organ fell apart.
> By that summer, Vrselja and Daniele had fine-tuned the pulse generator and attached a number of custom sensors[...]
It sounds like it was a lot of work getting the pulsation right. If they actually needed pulsation at all that seems like an interesting finding unto itself, since humans and cattle do fine with continuous-flow hearts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3423277
‘I saw with my own eyes the Sibyl of Cumae hanging in a jar, and when the boys said to her, ‘Sibyl, what do you want?’ she replied, ‘I want to die’.’
Is it fair to younger generations that we keep on living? If we don't die there will be fewer opportunities for the younger generations, the resources we have all have access to are after all rather limited. Population growth is already too high, immortality can only make it worse. We can see how millennials are struggling with a tight job market and housing market, all because previous generations who now have longer life spans than their parents are holding on these resources.
There are aspects to immortality that go beyond selfishness, such as the experience and knowledge that is lost of the people dying, being a negative to the society. I'm in support of pursuing technology to allow all or most of that knowledge to be preserved and passed on to younger generations but at some point I think we have to accept our role in this world and that role includes having to stop existing and let others have their chance at a full life.
But that means people who would have been otherwise born would not be. If that is not an issue, perfect, you have your technical solution. If that _is_ an issue, then you have more problems than immortals hoarding resources (one of them is Repugnant Conclusion [0]).
Another way to look at it -- would you want current lifespan artificially shortened if you knew for sure that it would make things fairer for new generations?
I feel like the same ethical concerns raised in the article about accidentally reviving a person into a sensory-deprivation nightmare could also apply to accidentally generating a thinking being that can only express itself though shopping recommendations.
We're a long ways off yet from a comprehensive ethics of universal consciousness.
Now that the war is through with me
I'm waking up, I cannot see
That there is not much left of me
Nothing is real but pain now
Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please God, wake me
Back in the womb it's much too real
In pumps life that I must feel
But can't look forward to reveal
Look to the time when I'll live
Fed through the tube that sticks in me
Just like a wartime novelty
Tied to machines that make me be
Cut this life off from me
Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please God, wake meThough I must point out -- and I've absolutely no qualms that you shared this, mind you! -- that Harlan Ellison used to be furious and very vocal about it when people shared his stuff online. I don't mind; I'd rather more people read these good old classics of the New Wave of scifi.
> Our grandfather's digital consciousness currently resides in this cube, where I upload the latest films and books for him to enjoy every week.
> We're also able to download correspondence from him. Over one thousand letters were received during his first hour in storage, as this was approximately four years time inside the cube. I will read one of his letters to you now: "Oh, oh God. Oh God. Oh God. Oh my God. Holy mother of God. Oh, oh, oh, oh God."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19684386
They said you would sleep for half a millennium — not an unreasonable length of time, considering you'd be in limited cryogenic suspension. Your body would rest frozen at the planet's nerve center, an underground complex 20 miles beneath the surface. Your brain, they told you, would be wired to a network of computers; your mind would continue to operate at a minimal level, overseeing maintenance of surface-side equilibrium. And you would not awake, so they promised, until your 500 years had elapsed — barring, of course, the most dire emergency.
Then, and only then, you would be awakened to save your planet by strategically manipulating six robots, each of whom perceives the world differently. But such a catastrophe, you have been assured, could not possibly occur.
Good morning.
That book is fantastic.
Maybe it's the way it breaks genre rules, starts out as straight sci-fi then busts out the dogma part way through. Whereas Screwtape starts with a premise that Satan is personified so I accepted that from the beginning.
Still interesting to see another side of Lewis's mind though. Maybe I'll give it another go one day.
I have to re-read Hideous Strength too, I don't know what I'd make of it nowadays... I do remember I very much enjoyed the Arthurian legends come alive, it spooked me out.
In that book, the tech works, except that one time out of six the person wakes up insane.
Silverberg, not Heinlein.
(Had me wondering if there was a Heinlein I hadn't read for a second.)
This is absolutely something we need to put lots of research and experimentation into.
Nothing really matters, you can only strive to achieve.
My point is not that research is worthless. My point is that relying on ethics to assign positive value to research in one hand whilst denying the existence of valid ethics when convenient is hypocritical.
And the zombies that can go on without any source of energy for years break thermodynamics.
Zombie movies outside of the contagious pathogen paradigm are more uncommon. Some zombie movies, particularly the older ones predating Night of the Living Dead, are premised on religious supernatural voodoo stuff (White Zombie [1932!]). In others, the condition is not strictly contagious, but exposure to a chemical substance causes a reversal of death (Re-Animator, and Return of the Living Dead (my personal favorite and the origin of zombies who desire 'Braaaaiiiiiins')) In only a few, the creature[s] are created by a mad scientist deliberately trying to reverse death using something other than a contagious pathogen (Frankenstein (should that count?), and Re-Animator.)
Mad scientist in an academic setting attempting to reverse death and accidentally creating an outbreak of non-contagious zombies is a pretty narrow list of zombie movies. Re-Animator is the only one that comes to mind. Anyway, a zombie outbreak obviously isn't going to happen, but if the public becomes generally aware of this research, now might be a good time for Hollywood to reboot Re-Animator. Gods know they hate making original movies these days. I'm aware that a zombie movie fan complaining about a lack of originality may seem ironic.