We had a discussion in the WEPR a couple months back about transferring bodies and what effect that would have on the psyche, mind, and functionality of the human body. All knowledge and evidence points to the fact that the brain is responsible for all manners of consciousness and activity. Given this, it would be possible that, given the necessary surgeries needed to transplant a brain into a fresh body, the consciousness of the transplant-or would use the vessel and live on. Once man1 reaches an old age, he can use a brain transplant to use a new vessel to become man2, but with his own consciousness. If he was 80 before and is using a 20 year old man, he would add 60 more years to his conscious life.
Complications of various manners can occur:
Immorality, for example, dictates that it would be wrong of a man to take someone else's body for his own, just to live longer. Even though the transplant-ee signed the waiver to allow man1 to take his body, the majority may think of this as wrong.
Socially, how would you interact with others, and vice-versa? You just took the body of a 20 year old man that had his own friends and family, while your own family is pretty much gone. Would you be with man2's peers or with man1's peers that are in generations 3 and 4?
Lawfully, how would you be tagged and ID'd? Jonathan Morrison (man1) or Samuel Watson (man2)? Would businesses and workplaces accept one that took the body of another man? Would you be shunned among your co-workers, or instead be revered, as you would have half a century of field experience?
Naturally, how would the flow of nature go, if many other people decided to transplant their brains, assuming morality accepts it? Our population expenditure would dramatically increase, wouldn't it?
Morality#2, what would others think if you were to mate with what used to be your family, but physically not? Biologically, the two are supposed to be strangers, thus fit to mate and would produce healthy children with none of the complications that mating with blood members would ensue.
Personally, would Man1 stomach the fact that he's using another man (or woman?) as a vessel? Would he be able to function normally, or would he break down? I suppose that would have to depend on Man1's original psyche.
I personally find this an interesting thread, and I would love to hear from the rest of you. Think: living for more than 120 years. No one has ever done that before in recorded history. Would it not be insurmountably awesome?
I would also like to resurrect Moegreche from the nether so I could hear his insight on this. :3
It seems like no one has tried to take that out, and posted anything about it on the web. I can look into it sifting through some college research papers, but I would have to come back to this by Monday afternoon. My personal opinion on this, is that if you took out your carbohydrate chain, your immune system would still attack it because it is STILL foreign. Even if it says nothing doesn't make it yours lol
It seems like no one has tried to take that out, and posted anything about it on the web. I can look into it sifting through some college research papers, but I would have to come back to this by Monday afternoon. My personal opinion on this, is that if you took out your carbohydrate chain, your immune system would still attack it because it is STILL foreign. Even if it says nothing doesn't make it yours lol
i understand your thought process here.... but people with type O blood are called universal donors b/c everyone can accept it.
there might be subclasses of O of which i know nothing about, but this is the science you will find taught in text books. I don't know if it works for organs or human tissue other than blood tissue but having no carbohydrates on your blood cells makes it acceptable for other hosts to receive it. The host will only reject something that it has decided doesn't belong there. At least with respect to blood the body must first acknowledge that there are carbs present that don't belong. if there are none present then it can't tell that it doesn't belong and because of that it lets it stay. I can't confidently explain the situation any deeper than that so I won't try. I know there is a deeper science to it... but i haven't gotten that far into my degree yet. sorries for not having the required knowldedge :'-(
We wouldn't have to replace everything with more organic material but instead with something synthetic that can replicate the functions of the organic material it's replacing. Not only would we end up with something more resilient but it side steps many of the ethical issues.
It's fine Sona. The only reason I haven't gone into further bodily functions and cells and stuff is because I have forgotten most of what we learned in biology last year. So much for my first alternative to the military, biomedical engineering.
I'm working on doubling in both chemistry and biology. and i'm in my 3rd year of college... you'd think i'd have a better answer for this... i just haven't gotten that in depth just yet. I may have better answers after I take Medical Physiology next semester.
oooohhh the mental agony that will come with next semester :'-(
We wouldn't have to replace everything with more organic material but instead with something synthetic that can replicate the functions of the organic material it's replacing. Not only would we end up with something more resilient but it side steps many of the ethical issues.
i mean i understand what you're saying... like electronic hearts and pseudo kidneys that filter your blood and stuff
but... my qualm with this is... as of now... I don't think we have the technology to replace a malfunctioning part of the brain. once the brain goes, it doesn't matter what you replace you're still either dead or a vegetable.
i mean i might be wrong, and we might just have the technology to replace someones brain... but i haven't heard of it
in the famous words of Dr. Weird.... "MY MIND!!!!!!!!!"
but... my qualm with this is... as of now... I don't think we have the technology to replace a malfunctioning part of the brain. once the brain goes, it doesn't matter what you replace you're still either dead or a vegetable.
We don't really have the technology to replace our entire bodies as the fail either. I thought this was more about speculating on the possibilities given what makes us, us is just an emergent property of the brain.
I thought this was more about speculating on the possibilities given what makes us, us is just an emergent property of the brain.
Should have stressed this in the OP. Given that we have the capable technology to perform this surgery with no complications, would you do it? How would you also think the different points I stressed in the OP would be like, such as the morality concept? Religiously, even?
How would you also think the different points I stressed in the OP would be like, such as the morality concept? Religiously, even?
First off, I don't think religion should have any say at all in what science does. As for morally, I think it depends on how this is done. Like if we could clone someone with the clone being concious and then transfer their concious into the clone body that would be ok. If it requires that someone dies for a body to be avaliable then its not so good.
@Sonata You were talking about telomers right? In somatic cells they get worn off and the cell interpretes the loss of protection as a fault in the DNA (which is kinda right since the DNA would keep getting shorter and loosing genes) and stops working. But in germ cells the telomerase keeps adding telomeric ends to the strand, so that the cells don't loose any DNA (which in germ cells is important since your descendants need the full genetic code). Maybe adding telomerase production to the brain cells would keep them alive. But I'd be careful with that since telomerase is what also keeps fast growing and dividing cells like cancer cells alive, so that may be a potential danger if it gets out of control.
Given that we have the capable technology to perform this surgery with no complications, would you do it?
I surely would do it, if my consciousness really stays. But I'd probably have more problem with constantly changing new human vessels than with my idea of a synthetic vessel. You're in some sort entering a whole new body that has different hormone productions and so on, so I'd be very careful with who I'd choose.
Morally? No problem, if the person who's body you're taking did agree and if it is ok with it's relatives also. Religiously? I second what Moe said, religion should be kept outside of this; it's your own personal decision, that is already influenced enough by any religion you may or may not be part of. No need of third persons yelling at you and being absolutely not helpful.
I don't think religion should have any say at all in what science does
UH HELLO?! Sir Issac Newton. By understanding nature through science, you become closer to god. Thus the scientific revolution. It wasn't ONLY because people wanted understanding, they thought they could get closer to God through science. So. Yeah.
I think that the moment you try to transfer the brain of a person, morality really starts to break down. A person is made of mind and body. With the body gone, is the person just a collection of memories and personality? Is personality not just a collection of learned behavior and responses based on past experiences?
I have often thought about the possibility of replicating the brain digitally, so that you can copy a persons memories and give it to a robot, which is somewhat similar. Some questions that I asked myself were; if the person whose memory is copied is still alive, would both personalities count as the same person? Would the digitally created personality just be an advanced AI? Is a robot with human memories be alive? Does this not leave life as a purely biological term?
Personally I think life and sense of purpose is linchpinned on the fact that we are not immortal, this gives us a sense of urgency and a motivation to move forward. Sure most of us would like to live longer, but if mortality was taken altogether, I don't think many would see the point after a few hundred years. You would have to actively search for things to fill up your time and eventually run dry, you would end up repeating the same things over and over until you grow tired of everything, lest you become a timeless being with no sense of time ... then can you still call yourself alive?
Given that we have the capable technology to perform this surgery with no complications, would you do it?
Actually we aren't capable of transplanting a brain into a fresh body yet. As for would i do it if it were possible this all depends on the situation of how the body is being obtained.
If it requires that someone dies for a body to be avaliable then its not so good.
What if it was a situation of a donor, would this still be unacceptable?
UH HELLO?! Sir Issac Newton. By understanding nature through science, you become closer to god. Thus the scientific revolution. It wasn't ONLY because people wanted understanding, they thought they could get closer to God through science. So. Yeah.
How many times has religion tried to step on science for not agreeing with the doctrines? One of the goals for scientists hundreds of years ago may have been to try and become closer to God through furthering our understanding, but as it turns out the more we understood the less God was needed.
That would be crazy. I don't think it would happen, as the social implications would be to weird. I read a book called The House of the Scorpion that had that similar idea.
Mage, Does it matter how many times a certain religion has tried to disprove science? And what was it.... Latin for Master Clock maker or something.... A lot of the very famous scientists in the scientific revolution believed that God did make the world, but since he was almighty, he was like a master clock maker, that doesn't have to go back and wind the clock to make it run. It goes on its own for pretty much ever. So he left humans with one giant puzzle, for us to figure out. The world. But nowadays everyone here ~cough cough Mage cough cough~ reacts like someone who says the word God or Christianity is like Someone caught the spreading epidemic of stupidity.
