brain transplant???

[Doc. Josh]

I was thinking this afternoon about brain transplant's. if and when this feat will be possible, my question is will you become the person who's brain you have? Or be the same person you currently are? Pretty sci-fi i know but worth a debate i feel..

[lemur]

You would wake up from surgery not knowing for certain whether you were your new body with memories of your old body or a transplanted soul. Your old soul might actually die with your old body and your new body's soul might just take over your new brain's identity as its own.

[imatfaal]

Soul?

 

 

Presuming medical advances that seems a long long way off... The brain is key - the consciousness in the brain would see a physical shell that looks/sounds different, but then I look/sound very different to when I was a teenager; the body feeding and protecting the brain would feel different, but I am sure the "slimmers of the year" who have shed over a hundred pounds feel different in their bodies and I am sure that changes would occur to your personality through the upheaval and other peoples reaction but our personality changes in greater or smaller leaps throughout life anyway.

 

It would be a massive physical and emotional challenge but without positing unproven supernatural or non-corporeal entities then the consciousness will remain with the brain not the body.

[Marat]

A brain transplant (if the apparently insuperable neurosurgical and immunological barriers could be overcome) would create interesting tensions with 'cellular memory,' which is the apparent capacity of the nerves outside the brain to store intellectual dispositions throughout the body. Transplant recipients often find that their tastes or sometimes even higher emotional and intellectual dispositions seem to be transplanted from their donor along with the organ they have received, so a transplanted brain in a foreign body might feel truly 'out of place.'

[imatfaal]

Marat - is there any real evidence for that? I would love to read a paper on it. I feel it is a great idea that fascinates both the press and the story-writers but I am not sure anyone has actual evidence for it. There are so many emotional and societal reasons that would promote and sustain such a meme - but I have yet to see any back-up evidence for it. The difference in connexion ratios between cells in the brain and those in the peripheral nervous system are many orders of magnitude.

[lemur]

It would be a massive physical and emotional challenge but without positing unproven supernatural or non-corporeal entities then the consciousness will remain with the brain not the body.

The problem comes when you compare this with the alternative, which would be difficult to distinguish for everyone involved, including the transplant patient. Think about it: if somehow consciousness was not transplanted together with the brain, what would it be like for a de-brained consciousness to acquire a new brain? The consciousness would wake up with the mind and memories of the new brain, so what basis would it have for knowing that it used to have different memories and thoughts? It would remember itself by accessing the memories of the new brain and think it had been transplanted from another body, even if it hadn't. This is one of the most fascinating issues in consciousness-transfer theorizing (to me or my transplanted brain . . . or maybe both of us:).

Edited January 21, 2011 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

"You don't have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

-- C.S. Lewis

 

If you switch brains from one body to another, you'll become the person whose brain you have, which is yours. You'll have to relearn all the "muscle memories", some information is stored in other parts of the nervous system than your brain, and in any case the details of your body are different so you'll have to relearn it all, even how to walk. Some of your personality might change, much like your personality might change when you get a certain job or a million dollars or any other possession, except that with a new body you would have different hormone balance.

[lemur]

"You don't have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

-- C.S. Lewis

 

If you switch brains from one body to another, you'll become the person whose brain you have, which is yours. You'll have to relearn all the "muscle memories", some information is stored in other parts of the nervous system than your brain, and in any case the details of your body are different so you'll have to relearn it all, even how to walk. Some of your personality might change, much like your personality might change when you get a certain job or a million dollars or any other possession, except that with a new body you would have different hormone balance.

I love the quote from CS Lewis. I've never heard it, but it agrees with my view. Still, I think you're too quick to assume the ego/identity/self and mind are the same thing as the soul. If the soul was separate from these things, a transplanted brain could bring with it a new ego/identity/self, mind, and memories and the soul would have no means of self-reference except what was available to it through its new brain. It's not a question of whether a person is a soul with body or a body with a soul; it's whether the soul would transplant with the brain or flee to some other part of the body and wait for a new brain to manifest its will-to-cognition.

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

Lemur - which part of the body, separate from the brain, do you claim might have some role in creating and maintaining the consciousness and memories? If you have any citations for the existence the above claim I would love to see it - but at present I do not believe we have any evidence that any part of the body apart from the brain is involved.

 

Or are you positing the existence of a supernatural soul? And iff you are advocating a soul that is manifest through non-corporeal interactions and media - this is beyond science and relies on faith.

[Xittenn]

I'm kind of hoping for the no soul so I can enjoy a new body iff by some act of God someone brilliant advances us to such a stage.

 

I don't think I would in any way be the same person though. If my skin suddenly didn't have the scars I see everyday when I look in the mirror or at my hands and arms I wouldn't feel so constantly malformed. But at the same time I have had nerves and tendons reattached and it is hard to imagine a successful brain transplant and even more, one that didn't cause severe and unusual trauma.

 

And I don't see how one would take on the host bodies original owners personality ... this is assuming the body was previously used.

[lemur]

Lemur - which part of the body, separate from the brain, do you claim might have some role in creating and maintaining the consciousness and memories? If you have any citations for the existence the above claim I would love to see it - but at present I do not believe we have any evidence that any part of the body apart from the brain is involved.

I don't, but I don't think there is more that conjecture in favor of the assumption that the soul is contained within the brain. There are religious philosophies that treat the mind as separate from the soul and I think that shouldn't be dismissed, since it is possible that the mind is more akin to software whereas the soul could be more like the processor that runs the software; or maybe the energy that runs the processor. Anyway, the point is that until you can specify what "the soul" is, how could you specify what part of the body it would/could persist to live within?

 

Or are you positing the existence of a supernatural soul? And iff you are advocating a soul that is manifest through non-corporeal interactions and media - this is beyond science and relies on faith.

I could, but I wouldn't do that in a materialist discussion like this one. It could, however, be that the brain only acts as an apparatus for processing signals and stories thoughts, memories, and habits of activity. The soul could operate through the hardware and software of the brain to create a sense of self, memories, etc. without these being permanently attached to the actual experiential being utilizing them. Maybe you could even do some kind of partial brain transplant where memories and thoughts from the original brain were kept in addition to the implanted brain. That way you could remember the way you used to be - or your new soul could have access to how the old soul used to live in the body. Either way, how would you know which soul you were if you couldn't assume correspondence between mind/memories and soul?

 

 

[imatfaal]

I don't, but I don't think there is more that conjecture in favor of the assumption that the soul is contained within the brain. There are religious philosophies that treat the mind as separate from the soul and I think that shouldn't be dismissed, since it is possible that the mind is more akin to software whereas the soul could be more like the processor that runs the software; or maybe the energy that runs the processor. Anyway, the point is that until you can specify what "the soul" is, how could you specify what part of the body it would/could persist to live within?

 

 

Lemur - you introduced the soul into the discussion, it behoves you to elucidate. I can quite clearly state that I do not believe there is any evidence for conscious thought or the consciousness residing outside the brain. We cannot allow for the sake of argument every conjecture of every religion for that way madness lies; I do not give the existence of the soul (distinct from a conscious mind / brain) any credence; thus I do not have to specify where it is sited.

 

 

I could, but I wouldn't do that in a materialist discussion like this one. It could, however, be that the brain only acts as an apparatus for processing signals and stories thoughts, memories, and habits of activity. The soul could operate through the hardware and software of the brain to create a sense of self, memories, etc. without these being permanently attached to the actual experiential being utilizing them. Maybe you could even do some kind of partial brain transplant where memories and thoughts from the original brain were kept in addition to the implanted brain. That way you could remember the way you used to be - or your new soul could have access to how the old soul used to live in the body. Either way, how would you know which soul you were if you couldn't assume correspondence between mind/memories and soul?

 

 

You say you do not posit a supernatural soul - but that is exactly what you are doing. If something is non-attached to the concrete world, is non-corporeal, then we need an explanation that is beyond nature and science. I think you need to define, in as strict terms as you find possible, what you refer to when you use the word 'soul'.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

I love the quote from CS Lewis. I've never heard it, but it agrees with my view. Still, I think you're too quick to assume the ego/identity/self and mind are the same thing as the soul. If the soul was separate from these things, a transplanted brain could bring with it a new ego/identity/self, mind, and memories and the soul would have no means of self-reference except what was available to it through its new brain. It's not a question of whether a person is a soul with body or a body with a soul; it's whether the soul would transplant with the brain or flee to some other part of the body and wait for a new brain to manifest its will-to-cognition.

 

Well I consider that the soul is the essence of a person, which to me means both the information and processing power contained in the brain. Thus someone's soul could be moved, copied, modified, or erased given sufficiently advanced manipulation technology (well for erasing all you need is a bullet and some time). As to why I believe this is because of the evidence, that the brain is responsible both for memory and our ability to think, our personality (most of it anyways), and such, as seen by analyzing multiple cases of brain damage patients.

[lemur]

Lemur - you introduced the soul into the discussion, it behoves you to elucidate. I can quite clearly state that I do not believe there is any evidence for conscious thought or the consciousness residing outside the brain. We cannot allow for the sake of argument every conjecture of every religion for that way madness lies; I do not give the existence of the soul (distinct from a conscious mind / brain) any credence; thus I do not have to specify where it is sited.

But what basis would you even have then to ask if the soul would get transplanted with the brain in a brain transplant? Obviously there is some possibility that it is possible to donate one's brain to another person or there would be no point to discussing the issue in the first place, would there?

 

You say you do not posit a supernatural soul - but that is exactly what you are doing. If something is non-attached to the concrete world, is non-corporeal, then we need an explanation that is beyond nature and science. I think you need to define, in as strict terms as you find possible, what you refer to when you use the word 'soul'.

I'm not trying to escape corporeal logic. What I'm saying is that the brain may simply be a processing organ that the soul uses to think and store memories. The soul might also have feeling-organs separate from the brain. E.g. people feel things in their abdomen's, hearts, stomachs, etc. Maybe those parts of their consciousness are not just perceived by their brain - maybe those parts are actually feeling themselves as well as the brain. Yes it is logical that if one part is severed from another, they lose access to each other. Severing the optic nerves would result in blindness, for example, but maybe the eyes can still see though the signal is no longer reaching the brain. Sight might be a bad example since that requires interaction with conscious perception to focus, control light intake be regulating pupil-size, etc. But maybe a person who is paralyzed from the neck down still has feelings below their head, only they are no longer conscious of it because the signal-connection is broken. Thus, the soul could be constituted from all the tissues and nerves, not just the brain. Does that clarify?

 

Well I consider that the soul is the essence of a person, which to me means both the information and processing power contained in the brain. Thus someone's soul could be moved, copied, modified, or erased given sufficiently advanced manipulation technology (well for erasing all you need is a bullet and some time). As to why I believe this is because of the evidence, that the brain is responsible both for memory and our ability to think, our personality (most of it anyways), and such, as seen by analyzing multiple cases of brain damage patients.

What was the movie with Harrison Ford where the guy loses his personality, memories, etc. but he still lives and functions? Anyway, the point is that a person can lose personality and memories, etc. and still have a "soul," no? You wouldn't say that a person who lost most brain function but maintained some had lost their soul (completely), would you?

 

 

[Marat]

There is serious scientific discussion under the topics of 'cellular memory' or 'bodily memory' about the possibility of memories being stored not just in the brain but also in the nerves of the various organs. There are many anecdotal reports of people who after receiving an organ transplant develop some of the same idiosyncracies of taste as their organ donors had, even though they did not know their donors.

 

But while it is interesting to explore the evidence for and against the possibility of some sort of somatic storage of memory, taste, and ideas outside of the nerves of the brain, the whole discussion is just confused if we start describing this general codification of memories all over the body as a feature of the body having a 'soul,' since that introduces a huge range of unnecessary metaphysical baggage for a scientific problem which doesn't need that hypothesis.

[lemur]

There is serious scientific discussion under the topics of 'cellular memory' or 'bodily memory' about the possibility of memories being stored not just in the brain but also in the nerves of the various organs. There are many anecdotal reports of people who after receiving an organ transplant develop some of the same idiosyncracies of taste as their organ donors had, even though they did not know their donors.

 

But while it is interesting to explore the evidence for and against the possibility of some sort of somatic storage of memory, taste, and ideas outside of the nerves of the brain, the whole discussion is just confused if we start describing this general codification of memories all over the body as a feature of the body having a 'soul,' since that introduces a huge range of unnecessary metaphysical baggage for a scientific problem which doesn't need that hypothesis.

The OP asked, I believe, "are you the same person after a brain transplant?" What do you want to call the "person" separate from her/his body and/or brain except for a "soul?" If you ask whether the transplanted brain will still have the same thoughts and memories, then say that instead of "the same person." If you want to ask whether the functions of the brain are coterminous with personhood, say that. Personally, I think there is a material possibility that a brain can be transplanted to a new body without the person's consciousness being transplanted with it. I think it is possible that one's consciousness harnesses the brain and other nerves to gain access to sensory input, cognitive power, memories, and muscle control but it may be that a body with brain removed would persist in searching for these functions within the de-brained body instead of transplanting along with the brain itself. Is there any way to test either hypothesis (i.e. that the brain can or can't be transplanted without transplanting the person's consciousness)?

 

Take a partial-transpant approach for comparison: If you could just transplant memories and nothing else, would the person with implanted memories be the same person/consciousness? What about if you could transplant cognitive-abilities (i.e. thought patterns) without altering memories or anything else? Would the altered person be the same person with the same memories but new thought-patterns, or would the thought-patterns constitute a new/transplanted person/consciousness who had to deal with memories and a body new to them? If Einstein's cognitive-programming could be scanned from his brain tissue and re-written onto someone living, with or without the life-memories, would this be the same thing as resurrecting a person from death or merely a revision of a living-person's subjectivity, where the consciousness remained otherwise unaltered?

 

 

[imatfaal]

There is serious scientific discussion under the topics of 'cellular memory' or 'bodily memory' about the possibility of memories being stored not just in the brain but also in the nerves of the various organs. There are many anecdotal reports of people who after receiving an organ transplant develop some of the same idiosyncracies of taste as their organ donors had, even though they did not know their donors.

 

But while it is interesting to explore the evidence for and against the possibility of some sort of somatic storage of memory, taste, and ideas outside of the nerves of the brain, the whole discussion is just confused if we start describing this general codification of memories all over the body as a feature of the body having a 'soul,' since that introduces a huge range of unnecessary metaphysical baggage for a scientific problem which doesn't need that hypothesis.

 

Cellular memory is normally considered as way out on the fringes - a pseudo-science. If you have any links to serious academic work on it I would love to see it - from what I can read it is posited by non-scientists without a real knowledge of cell biology in the body.