It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the Brain live forever?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Just wondering, how long can the human brain survive, assuming it is constantly stimulated and there is an infinite supply of oxygen and essential nutrients?

Imagine a brain, with no body, but receiving a level of stimulation and nutrition as if it were harnessed within one at a constant rate for infinite time. Is there a maximum amount of time before it would just decay? Is the human brain evolved to last only a certain amount of time, and how long can it hypothetically live, assuming infinite and constant access to stimulation, nutrients, and invulnerability to any affliction or injury, whether genetic, chemical, viral, organic or physical?

[edit on 2-8-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I would say no. Nothing lives forever. As far as I know anyway...
I believe someone figured out why we age...The story is months old but I distinctly remember it. I think maybe a deficit of something over time...



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
of course it would not last forever. all biological organisms change chemically which we call decay and old age, which result in death, but in scientific chemical terms, this is not merely just an end,death but a transformation of the thing into other things, like the way einstein said that energy is transformed or changed but still exists in a different structure and form. just the oxygen itself which would be necessary to sustain the organ which is the brain in this example, while sustaining the brain, also cause it decay, which is like when your apple that you took a bite from turns brown. you may like to or actually, it is unpleasant to watch, see the experiments with the frog legs that jump after removed from the poor little animal. i think the frog can regenerate legs, i am not certain, bottom line is that the elecrical current causes the movement but anyhow what could be the reason to keep a living brain unless doing a body and head transplant? and our present technology doesn't have that yet. or unless you were studying a live brain for data on brain function. yet those studies may not be relevant to brains in living humans, because the spinal column has alot to do with the brain and so do things like hormones and gasses and circulation of a human alive and with a brain, as well, as the nerve endings from the body which communicate to the control center, the brain.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The human brain lives for about two years before it is completely replaced by a new brain. Same goes for other organs in your body as well.

This cycle repeats about 50 times or less.

Your consciousness? I am not sure how long that lives. But I bet it is a lot longer than 100 years.

The brain is just a way of storing memories, period. What you experience in life -- the particular qualia of existence -- is independent of biology.

I think I am correct here.

#

Edit: Okay, did some research on this. My claim might not be true after all. Here is a link:

wiki.answers.com...



So, even though we think of our bodies as being permanent structures, most of our tissues (outside of our brains) are continually being turned over, renewed in a balance between the constant death of old cells (likely through the process of apoptosis) and the constant birth of new cells. In last week's New York Times article about this paper, Dr. Frisen (the senior author) suggested that the average age of the cells in an adult human may be as low as seven to ten years. Remember, this is an average value. As shown by Spalding et al, the value varies by tissue.


Note that the human brain is specifically excluded. Interesting.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


The brain can't live forever. It would eventually die due to age. The brain does not replace itself every two years as Buck said. You can easily see this in stroke patients.

The brain does not heal like a muscle or a cut heals. Once it's hurt, it's hurt forever. Of course, the brain can sometimes recover from severe trauma like a stroke, but it's not because it has healed, it's because of redundancy and other parts of the brain picking up the tasks.

Eventually the neurons in the brain would break down and you would lose consiousness and die. There is, however, stem cell research going on with the goal of forming new neurons. If you could keep the brain totally free of any harm and replace neurons with stem cells, I think you could potentionally keep the brain alive for as long as you like.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
And there's another thing to consider here, the brain is a somatic response system, ie, it depends on the body for biofeedback so it can have a healthy emotional system and as such also have a healthy rationality, because there is a solid link between body and emotion and between emotion and intelligence.

Take the body away and you have an uncoordinated psychotic mess that could probably not function adequatly, no matter how long it "lived".

And then there's the whole energy being level of the human fractal, which most of us can't even claim to understand, but which also seems to be linked to the whole body, not just the brain. I suspect as knowledge develops on the subject we will realise just how interconnected the brain is not just with the body but with the cosmos and the idea of breaking that symmetry will start to disgust us.

Bodyless brains is little more than B movie science fiction imho.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The brain is a very complex and poorly understood organ. There are two thing's wrong in the responses to this post though.

1) The brain does generate new neurons on a daily basis.
2) The brain can repair damage, but this repair takes some time. Which is understandable considering the immense energy requirements to operate this particular organ.

There are cellular pathways in the brain for new cells to follow to damaged areas. The brain generates it's own stem cells that then turn into whichever cells are needed. These two discoveries are pretty recent, so I don't blame anyone here for not knowing this.

Given that, it's quiet possible to keep a "brain vat" of sorts for studying purposes. One could also implant sensors into the brain that could allow the personality inside it to speak, hear, and see. That would negate any emotional downside. Except the personality could get a bit agitated with the poor quality of the sensors, I know I would!

Consciousness is a product of the brain, considered it a biological artificial intelligence algorithm. A very very very complex one at that. You take away all energy sources from the brain and you will effectively shut down the whole system, including all programs running inside it. This would include the artificial intelligence algorithm we call consciousness.

Our so called "spiritual being" is a superstitious notion developed from religion, which is an entirely different topic then this. It may seem that we are "outside" the normal functioning of the brain, but that is one of the many wonders of self awareness. Self awareness also happens to be another algorithm of the brain that is also poorly understood, but to equate that with spiritualness is not necessary.

There is also the possibility of uploading the brain into a computer. Once technology is advanced enough, we could simulate all five senses for this uploaded mind. Virtual environments could be provided for stimulation. As long as the computers are kept running and in working condition, a brain kept "alive" in this manner could conceivably last for a very very long time. Potentially for hundreds of generations of normal biological humans.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The above is the traditional transhumanist response. "We can beat nature" is basically what it comes down to.

I don't buy it. One, because, as stated, I don't believe we're that isolated or that our consciousness is just an autonomous algorithm running in our grey matter. I think consciousness may be software, yes, that it is a data matrix, yes, but that it runs at a lower (or higher, depending on one's pov) level in the fractal and that it interfaces with the body as an experience reception organism. If you isolate the body, specifically the brain, I don't believe you'll get a complete human personality, just a poorly functioning fac simile.

Now, most transhumanists are already poorly functioning fac similes themselves, so they might not even notice the diference, but I do suspect I would.

Edit on spirituality: one can have whatever belief system one wants, but at the end of the day we live in a universe which has some sort of physical matrix underlining it. If out of the body consciousness happens to fit in this matrix one can call it superstition all one wants, but that won't change reality. The jury is out on this one.

And all this is without going into the massive ethical concerns regarding the scientific process, and the individuals sacrificed to it, that would be needed to get such a demonic technology up and working. Working here being used ironically. I for one do not believe we have legitmacy to even try, and scientist engaged in this type of experimentation should be criminalized. It saddens me to live in a society that criminalizes marijuana yet puts butchers up on a pedestal.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Zepherian]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I am not a transhumanist at all, I would never upload my brain or live in a brain vat of sorts. I am the kind of guy who wants to live a full life and then die. Relating the possibilities of science doesn't make someone a "practitioner".

As for spirituality, this is a different topic, but can be easily shown to be pure superstition created by primitive man. Lest we also not forget the underlying issue of no evidence for a spiritual universe and no logical reasoning for why there should be one in the first place. There is also the issue that our universe is fundamentally physical in nature and experimentally shown as such with no evidence of any supernatural nature to it all.

Conducting experiments on the possibility of mind uploading being criminal? That is insanity and exactly why science doesn't flourish to the extents that it could. It's the spiritualists and religious beliefs that hinder the growth of human knowledge. The inconceivable notion that we might tick off some naked invisible god that we place only faith on it's existence. That is exactly the type of ignorance science wants to abolish. Knowledge is a powerful tool that can be used to do great things, without knowledge, we might as well still live in mud huts and sharpen our spears before the big hunt, which will only take place after we worship a stone carving that we believe embodies the spirit of our great deity.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
While you may not be a transhumanist your original post was a transhumanist response, whether you were aware of it is another, and personal, issue. I meant no personal insult and sorry if I came off a bit agressive, was not my intention.

Spirituality is another few thousand threads so I won't be sidelined on this one


And yes, knowledge is power and I keep knowledge no matter where it came from, but that does not mean I am willing to do everything to get it. Do realise that for this sort of technology to be developed into anything vaguely resembling a working state will inevitably mean the murder and/or torture of people. I don't expect it to work first time up, I expect scientists to fumble around untill they get a brain to reboot. It's going to be gruesome, unethical and, this one is imo, ultimately pointless.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
It is an interesting thing to speculate on, how long could a brain really last given all the inputs needed to survive.
I would assume that if all trauma could be negated somehow or the brain to actually be grown outside of a body and it never having contact with a body in the first place (e.g. grown in a lab) then i suppose that it would last for the general lifespan of a human, although considering tht most humans who die of old age do so due to other organs rather than the brain shutting down a brain could last even longer.

With the human brain being as powerful and as capable of all the things it is whilst using (if scientists are correct) only 10% of itself then perhaps a lab created brain could be used as a proccessor or an organic cpu in some kind of revorlutionary computer system.

I would like to add that i have seen on film (on a channel 4 (uk) documentary) about three years about some Russian scientists in the mid seventies succesfully transplant the head of one chimpanzie onto the body of another and it retained all brain function including blinking eyes and moving facial muscles although no bodily movement was possible as they could not reattatch the spinal cord.
The chimp lived for several hours before either dying or being killed (the documentary didn't say wether it wass killed or not).
The experiment was carried out in secret due to it being considered cruelty to do this to the two chimps involved.

If this could be done with chimps then what about the possibilty of one day transplanting a human head/brain into a mechananical body, which may be used to treat paralasys sufferers.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I know what a transhumanist is, and I understand that the response could be interpreted as such. No insult was taken. Takes a lot for me to feel insulted, I have a habit of just not caring about what people say, it isn't worth my time to do so.

I wasn't trying to sideline you on the spirituality issue. You briefly brought it up, so I briefly touched up on it. This sort of technology is not being forced upon anyone, thankfully and I doubt it ever will be. There is no ethical or moral issues surrounding the technology at all. People who wish to participate with mind uploading are doing so of there own free will. Who are we to judge them against it? I agree, the technology in it's infancy won't be an exact science and will be riddled with bugs, but so is cryogenics, and yet there are hundreds of people who freeze themselves in hopes that the technology is viable without any evidence that they will ever be revived.

The technology is not pointless either. I can think of quiet a few important uses for mind uploading. Military applications, space exploration, deep sea exploration, virtual environment development. There are literally hundreds of various functions this technology could perform and those who wish to participate will be the ones who benefit as well. To say it is pointless is to deny that it serves any application at all, which is a blatant lie.


sty

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
very interesting post! I can recall that the brain "could" live 280 to 320 years . Why ? planning to transfer it in an Asimov like robot?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Consciousness is a product of the brain, considered it a biological artificial intelligence algorithm. A very very very complex one at that. You take away all energy sources from the brain and you will effectively shut down the whole system, including all programs running inside it. This would include the artificial intelligence algorithm we call consciousness.

You sound like you might be a medical doctor. I would say that consciousness is in NO WAY a software program. Likewise, the reflection in a mirror is not a real person. We do not have any idea how to connect a software program to "feelings". It is totally hidden from us. We also don't know how to do this with biology, or why it occurs.

There is an underlying mystery at the core of everything we do, and every sensation we feel. You are looking at the brain from the outside in (hence my belief you are an MD) and ignoring the fact that it is "You" looking at the brain.

You gave a well contemplated and serious response.
But I triggered on that particular paragraph.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
why even bother having a physical form at all? if all youre trying to accomplish is to keep a mind intact, you might as well transfer the mind's data into electronic form.

granted, that technology probably doesnt exist (yet), but the technology to keep an isolated brain "alive" is probably relatively advanced itself.

furthermore, the the costs involved with the former (electronic conversion) are probably much cheaper than the latter.

[edit on 8/2/2008 by prototism]


sty

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by prototism
 


well, we can always save time in order to allow the technology to be developed. I like the idea of transferring the brain into machine first, then little by little allowing circuits to replace the dead neuron-cells .Sure in the moment when all our mind is stored, we can expand it at will... this would be even greater. But indeed our brain is also our body (feelings) so would it still be us?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I thank you for the compliment, but just as I am not a transhumanist, I am also not an MD. There is nothing indicative showing that consciousness is not a product of the brain. The whole concept of consciousness being outside of the normal functioning of the brain stems from religious beliefs. It need not matter if you are religious or have some form of spiritual belief or not, that is just where the concept first evolved from.

Emotional conditions of the brain are somewhat understood. For example, we know that emotions are processed by the limbic system. The emotion of love first starts with seeing a potential mate that we might find appealing. The hypothalamus releases a series of hormones which triggers the pituitary gland to release it's own set of hormones which go about in our blood stream reaching our reproductive organs. All the while these hormones are also triggering reward and pleasure centers of our brains. Sure, the scientific approach to the emotion of love may seem cold, but that is what it is. Knowing how it functions doesn't detract from the beauty of the emotion though.

In order for consciousness to reside outside the brain, we would need some conclusive evidence showing this to be true. Currently there is none, but there is more than enough showing it to be a function of the brain. As it stands, there has never been anything to show that there is or should be a supernatural explanation for the universe other than the word of some primitive people back thousands of years ago. I find it highly suspect to take the word of a primitive uneducated man just because we don't have all the answers. We'll never have all the answers and the best we can only hope for is to keep learning and growing our expansive set of knowledge.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sty
reply to post by prototism
 


well, we can always save time in order to allow the technology to be developed. I like the idea of transferring the brain into machine first, then little by little allowing circuits to replace the dead neuron-cells .Sure in the moment when all our mind is stored, we can expand it at will... this would be even greater. But indeed our brain is also our body (feelings) so would it still be us?
a brain is not a body, a brain is the physical container for the intangible mind. the mind, a conciousness, controls feelings.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I have to say I didn't expect to get such interesting responses. I for one would like to consider myself trans humanist in the ideal. I left a fairly vague question to start off this thread because I wanted to see what type of responses you would all leave. I predicted all three of the major responses, which appeared here, those that I expected to receive by posing my question the way I did.

From the technical feasibility of brain transplants and vats, the ethical dilemma of experimentation, and the inherent religious-consciousness polemic; as time passes and the mind transcends, from organic underpinning to binary framework, this topic becomes increasingly more intriguing.


If out of the body consciousness happens to fit in this matrix one can call it superstition all one wants, but that won't change reality. The jury is out on this one.


Zeph, I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying if "out of body consciousness fits in this matrix" then it would essentially be real? The jury is out, I know. I just didn't understand the sentence.

The one topic I'll comment on...

Believe it or not, many outstanding medical advances have and will continue to emerge out of unethical human experimentation and trial.

www.naturalnews.com...
www.bsos.umd.edu...

These are a few interesting articles. You may yourself have been involved in mass experimentation, surely many of you are unwittingly lucky enough to be alive because of medical advances made only possibly by said experimentation on the few unlucky individuals. I personally do not condone dangerous experimentation on the human body, and as you can see from the links provided they paint a pretty gruesome picture (I certainly would not tolerate it, especially if I were the one on the cutting board) but it is nevertheless true that without this many individuals would not be living today. As we move into the future this statement will only become increasingly more accurate.

To be honest, I do not believe that the ultimate goal of life is to follow the strict parameters of organic evolution, to live, learn all one can, and replicate before one dies, in a futile attempt to simply extend the lifetime of our species ever so longer. This can't go on forever. Why do people want to live longer, healthier lives? Some would like to raise their children, others would like to keep learning the things they love. I believe this is simply the first step; that the second lies in longevity, and the ultimate goal being the spread of sentient observers throughout all modes of physical existence.

I don't believe one can genuinely have an opinion without being subject to a conflict of morality. Can I not be against something and at the same time support the facts as they appear? Alas, I am simply an observer, and I imagine my constitution is split into as many opinions as there issues perceived.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by cognoscente]




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join