>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?

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?

If you can figure out an interface you could back up memories on some non-organic system. If you split inputs to both brain and storage the brain could learn to access data from the backup when it's one memory is missing or unreliable.

I guess the final question, and I forgot to address this in my initial comment, is whether or not consciousness can function with this set up at all.

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!

> How long until the technology is perfected and some form of immortality is reached?

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).

Maybe evolution will solve that for us?

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.

But the survival of the fittest process of evolution can't occur because that requires reproduction.

Simply clone the brains with the fewest plaques

And what will your brain perceive, how would you feel?

Does "en eternity in hell" sound exciting? Because it might be a very real possibility.

I'd speculate that in an isolated brain dreaming would still be possible. Possibly, without external stimulation it would not be possible to be awake.

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.

This is such a weird scenario it's hard to imagine how traumatic this would be, and if it would ever be possible to regain conscience that thing would most likely be just something else other than human.

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..

It's traumatic of course to have that happen but you still remember your life, you don't forget about first grade or something. Our mental state is affected by the health state of our bodies. I just read the wikipedia bio of Damasio, I see he's a real neuroscientist (I am not). But how can it be that our memories are not only in our brain?

I'd imaging that phantom body signals could be a real issue. Pain, burning, numbness, motion, visual hallucinations. It could really be hell.

And yet, it would be _my_ hell. And I would be _alive_ and not dead.

In something that could be worse than solitary confinement. I remind you, that is the place used to punish people who were already in jail. Nobody is known to resist more than a few days there, yet you want an entire eternity.

Far from me to deny you any option... I'm just saying it's far too risky for myself.

Well, it sounds more interesting and useful than death, which is the default alternative.

Isn't there a real possibility that being removed from everything that allows us to perceive reality, psychological trauma could result?

..and with no ability to communicate with that brain in a jar, we'd have no idea what's going on inside of it. We could be putting it in hell and never know. It could be like the movie Waking Life, eternal dreaming without ever being able to wake up.

The title of the game/short novel comes to mind: "I Have No Mouth Yet I Must Scream."

> ..and with no ability to communicate with that brain in a jar, we'd have no idea what's going on inside of it.

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.

You're still assuming it's not like sleep, and that you wouldn't be floating in a vat of chemicals/equipment that had an impact on your mental state. And you still shouldn't assume that death is preferable to solitary confinement or sensory deprivation.

> You're still assuming it's not like sleep, and that you wouldn't be floating in a vat of chemicals/equipment that had an impact on your mental state.

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?

Being a brain in a vat doesn't imply much though. I mean, you can't assume someone has lobbed your head of and crudely crammed it into a jar of formaldehyde. For all anyone knows, you're in The Matrix instead. So unless we constrain the problem, there's no more reason to assume it is torture than there is to assume it is euphoria.

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.

If one is allowed to assume sci-fi, ... no, not even sci-fi, outright sci-fantasy levels of technology like the Matrix, the question becomes essentially meaningless. One might as well just say a new body will be instantaneously grown out of magical quantum nanobots created by the Singularity the second the brain in the vat scenario occurs and avoid any of the hard questions raised about becoming a brain in a vat in the first place.

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.

Brains-in-vats have only ever been science fiction. Regardless, there's nothing about anything I've said that is known to violate any laws of physics, so your objection to 'magical' extrapolations is irrelevant. I say "The Matrix", but obviously you can substitute any number less fanciful mechanisms into the process -- psychotropic drugs & electromagnetic stimulation are not fiction.

Psychological trauma is still better than death. Besides you could ask the same question in reverse:

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.

> Psychological trauma is still better than death.

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.

Who are you to decide what I choose to do with my body? Who are you to choose what are my values?

You are not. I am.

And I choose to live.

> 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.

Choices can change. This would require some changes in laws on euthanasia obviously, nothing insurmountable.

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.

> Choices can change. This would require some changes in laws on euthanasia obviously, nothing insurmountable.

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?

You can assume being a brain in a vat would be torture, but I see no reason to assume it wouldn't be euphoria. Either way, life is better than death. Living in any state gives technology more to work with than turning to dust would.

How would a technological brain-in-a-vat hell of unending torture be "more interesting" and "useful" than death?

How can 0.0001 be greater than 0? Death is very uninteresting and useless, and most importantly, offers almost no possibility of being reversed.

There seems to be at least one positive to death: the end of the struggle. If you don't exist you don't need to worry, to suffer, to care. There's a certain type of comfort in knowing that at the end of it all, it's really not that important. Immortality seems to me as too many paths to a hellish existence, especially since we aren't adapted to such an existence, psychologically or physically.

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.

You can consider that a positive, but it is also an inevitability. Nobody is talking about immortality here. But you also wouldn't be saying the end of all life would be positive (which you could, for exactly the same reasons) and that still wouldn't mean you shouldn't delay it for as long as possible.

>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.

I imagine so. No connection to your heart or body?

It would be horrible to not be connected to your heart.

I mean, you do know that there are people out there with no hearts, connected permanently to an external blood pump?

This is quite timely, as I'm just about to finish Neal Stephenson's new novel: Fall, or Dodge In Hell. https://n.pr/30EFA4l

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.

Came here to say this. Almost finished myself and have loved the read so far.

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=...

All good questions, but it also lends some credence to the cryopreservative folks who are freezing people's heads for later reanimation. What those guys need is a recipe that they can use to insure the preserved brain can be re-animated later. For them a good perfusion process and a perfusion fluid that maximally preserves brain tissue over time would be a solid advancement in their cause.

Given the amount of brain damage that will happen even with good methods, you'd probably be better off using the perfusion to instead perfuse cryoprotectives and vitrify your brain to stop all additional degradation indefinitely (or instead of cryonics, use plastination to fixate the brain), and wait for a permanent solution.

Said permanent solution will likely require some volunteers though after all on the way to perfecting it.

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.

> 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.

>How would it work. Do you get to 90 years old and they pull out your brain and put it into a newer body?

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.

Yeah, but is the brain still a billionaire when detached from a body? Sounds dead to me....

Depends on how good its attorney is. Or whether it remembers its bitcoin keys?

First they'll have to figure out if an attorney can represent a brain as a client.

So long as the brain can pay them on retainer...

Relatively easy to do. We have patients in coma having attorneys and people with no mobility having them as well.

> Your head in a jar until they either create a new body for you or find a donor body

Could you imagine the horror of waking up and being just a head?

Yes, it truly sounds horrific! Straight out of a nightmare movie!

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.

For me, it sure beats dying!

In its current form it would probably be horrific torture at best.

In many places euthanasia is legal and plenty of people chose to die than continue living, that shows that there are people and situations where dying is better than living under any conditions. It's unfortunate that's the choice they are making but it may be the better choice for them. How do we know being a disconnected brain in a container is an improvement over their situation?

does it? being conscious, blind, paralyzed and deaf is a preferred outcome to you?

I wonder if your brain could deal with that... If you don't emulate any sensations or bodily "communications" would your brain just snap?

Hopefully the shock of having literally no sensory input would prevent your brain from entering such a hell.

    Keyboard not found
    Press any key to continue...
    >

People hallucinate without sensory input and some of those hallucinations can be terrifying.

Read up on sensory deprivation tanks.

I can imagine some really cyberpunk scenarios: "kill me... the... corporation... won't let me die... kill me...!"

If you want a semi-historical platform to launch this hypothetical scenario from, Rudolf Hess would be a good example. He was imprisoned, along with other nazis, in a prison in West Berlin shortly after WWII. It was agreed that the different allied powers would take turns guarding this prison as long as prisoners remained. Fast-forward to the Cold War era, and that agreement had an unintended consequence: it gave the USSR a precious foothold in West Berlin. Thus, they vetoed every request for Rudolf Hess's release, until he died in 1987. He had been the lone inmate of the 600-cell prison for more than 20 years.

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.

Hell that pretty much straight up happens in Neuromancer, which is considered to be the codifier/originator of a huge portion of the tropes that make up cyberpunk as a genre.

Reminds me of a scene from Mars Attacks

If this fascinates you, then you'll like Altered Carbon, Broken Angels, and Woken Furies by Richard K. Morgan. Changing bodies is commonplace for the rich in these novels. They are quite excellent, if not a tad violent, so don't read them if that's not your thing.

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.

If you're interested in these types of questions - Neal Stephenson's new book Fall deals with many of these.

This literally sounds like Futurama, having heads in jars.