Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Severs Ties To Company Promoting Fatal Brain Uploading (technologyreview.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the unethical-practices dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: The MIT Media Lab will sever ties with a brain-embalming company that promoted euthanasia to people hoping for digital immortality through "brain uploads." The startup, called Nectome, had raised more than $200,000 in deposits from people hoping to have their brains stored in an end-of-life procedure similar to physician-assisted suicide. MIT's connection to the company came into question after MIT Technology Review detailed Nectome's promotion of its "100 percent fatal" technology. Under a subcontract, MIT was receiving approximately $300,000 from a federal grant won by Nectome to develop methods of brain preservation and analysis. According to an April 2 statement, MIT will terminate the research contract with Media Lab professor and neuroscientist Edward Boyden. Boyden said he didn't have a financial stake or other personal involvement with Nectome. MIT's connection to the company drew sharp criticism from some neuroscientists, who say brain uploading isn't possible.

55 comments

  1. So social media, 3D printing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    space colonies and other puerile nonsense is PhD-level MIT stuff, but actual breakthroughs?

    Well, I'm off to learn Mandarin, maybe the Chinese will work on actual science. Fred Pohl was right...

    1. Re: So social media, 3D printing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite sad, this is the same MIT that invented graphical computing and assisted the victory of WWII...

    2. Re: So social media, 3D printing by sabri · · Score: 1

      this is the same MIT that assisted the victory of WWII...

      No it is not. It is an MIT consisting of nothing but naysayers. The idea that one day a human would be on the moon would get the same response from "scientists" as late as 1930.

      some neuroscientists, who say brain uploading isn't possible.

      So is putting a human on the moon. Or is it?

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  2. 100 percent fatal by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1, Informative

    100 percent fatal? is that different than 90 percent fatal? Fatal is sort of a binary thing.

    1. Re:100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 percent fatal? is that different than 90 percent fatal? Fatal is sort of a binary thing.

      Apparently it depends upon whom you ask.

    2. Re:100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The procedure only preserves structure. So, yes, it's certain you will not come back in any way.

    3. Re:100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they mean that 100 of every 100 customer experience fatality as part of the procedure.

      if only 90 of every 100 customers experienced fatality then it would only be 90% fatal.

    4. Re:100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was just a poorly-worded way of differentiating it from other highly risky medical procedures where the patient might have, for example, a 50/50 chance of surviving.

    5. Re:100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Fatal is sort of a binary thing.

      That's horribly isophobic of you, clearly fatality is a spectrum.

    6. Re: 100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the 100% thing is superfluous. It's just meant to dispel any notion that it might not be fatal. They should of just stuck with fatal. People thinking they will be resurrected in the future should think twice.

    7. Re:100 percent fatal by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      This is just a form of DRM to make sure there is only one copy of you at any given time...
      So you would expect a really secure delete, right?
      Also, No Refunds!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    8. Re:100 percent fatal by quanminoan · · Score: 0

      The uploaded simulated brain is fully conscious and living, but unfortunately only 10% can be uploaded with a high error rate, so approximately 90% fatal.

    9. Re: 100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Should *have*, you cretin.

    10. Re:100 percent fatal by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Did they ask any of the people whose brains were embalmed?

    11. Re:100 percent fatal by gweihir · · Score: 1

      100 percent? These people are losers. Real men do it 110 percent fatal!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:100 percent fatal by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Fatal is sort of a binary thing.

      Not in aggregate groups.

    13. Re:100 percent fatal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful talk like that and we'll have to start adding letters to that damn acronym. It's long enough without tacking Zombies Revenants Vampires Wraiths Ghosts aPparitions, to it.

  3. Yeah... about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The resolution required is vastly beyond current volume scanning techniques, destructive or not. The data storage required for one brain is a warehouse-filler affair. The nature of how the multiple storage mechanisms work still isn't even 100% clear.

    I'm not going to jump out and announce brainmaps to be impossible (and not just because a Charles Strossian future would be cool), since none of these problems are physically insurmountable, but the idea that it's realistically plausible with current technology is absurd. When we've taken, say, some worm or bug with a total of 100 neurons and demonstrated a capture/upload/virtualization of said creature, I'll buy that itshappening.gif, not before. Then we can start pondering the moral implications... and the unspeakable horrors it would enable.

    But of course, the Human Genome Project spent multiple billions of dollars to sequence the first human genome... and the technology and techniques they developed mean it can now be done for funsies for $50. So yeah, don't bet against science. Because fuck yeah, science.

  4. We actually have no idea... by LetterRip · · Score: 1

    We actually have no idea if it is possible. We certainly can't do it with today's technology - but it may be that the connectome and other information (mylenation thickness and extent) preserved when freezing the brain - may be sufficient to do a digital simulation/upload 'in the future'.

    A connectome does seem adequate to simulate extremely simple nervous systems.

    1. Re:We actually have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former neuroscientiest, I can tell you that we know quite a lot about brain structure. It's not possible to "upload". Much of the information is in a very complex, 3D, nearly fractal layout of of the neurons themselves. There is *no* mechanical or electrical way to replicate this without using biological means, and precise replication is not even remotely possible. One might be able to grow another brain of similar behavior much the way we raise children: physically support it and expose it to similar experiences.

      Even connecting a brain to a support system, without hormonal support and a nervous system to keep it alive, is problematic in the extreme.

    2. Re: We actually have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is incorrect. Simulations of real world systems is something I know a few things about. No, we cannot do it now, but the interconnects and behaviours of individual neurons is not unknowable, mysterious or at all impossible to model. I believe we know a lot about the individual storage mechanisms and interconnects, but not enough to model them yet, that is different than it being impossible.

      It would be -harder-, I think (now my speculation) to somehow grow a biological duplicate, and then cause it make the connections and training, than it would be to simply map the connections and build a massively parallel computational model. At least said model would be robust and could be easily iterated...

      Doesnâ(TM)t make this companyâ(TM)s claims any less BS.

    3. Re:We actually have no idea... by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Approach is wrong.

      People want to make a fully identically functioning system that they can then replicate activity patterns on.

      Instead, make use of the way the brain (and subsequently, the consciousness operating inside it) incorporates and induces activity on implanted devices.

      Basically, stop with all this scanning shit. Instead, focus on a single, uniform platform that is well known and easy to simulate, then implant the patient with some implants that link the simulation with the still living organic brain. The organic brain will incorporate the functionality of the simulation. In short, go the ship of theseus route. As the brain begins to fail from either injury or old age, it will rely more and more on the simulation hardware, until eventually, it gives up. If you made the right connections, you will have valid activity in the simulation after the death of the organic component. Congrats, you have an upload.

      This requires a very robust simulation platform though, which we do not currently have. DARPA is doing some interesting research on simulating neural columns, and the last I heard anything concrete was years ago, so if the project is still active, I can only assume they have gotten much better at their simulation. I understand that Chinese researchers are also working on simulating neuronal columns--
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Still, as interesting as these appear, they are noplace near mature enough to have attached to living humans as ancillary networks to support and replace function.)

      Again, the issue of "Every organic brain is so vastly different, there is no way we can scan the physical networks for replication!" becomes less important, when you instead say "Let's build a generic, uniform simulation platform that we can then attach, and exploit neuroplasticity of the organic side for deep integration."

    4. Re:We actually have no idea... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There is *no* mechanical or electrical way to replicate this without using biological means, and precise replication is not even remotely possible.

      Since it's coming up on its hundredth anniversary of publication, I'd draw your attention to the Church-Turing thesis. Any computational device can simulate any other, it's just a question of performance. With current computers, we could simulate a human brain if we had a sufficiently accurate scan, though I'd be very surprised if you could run it at even 0.01% of the original speed.

      That said, I don't disagree with your core point that acquiring the accurate scan is well beyond current technology.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:We actually have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've often thought that this is the way to go. I generally believe that what we call "consciousness" is the active processing of data, as in the "energy" that exists at any given moment in time between "the future" and "the past"...that is, at the moment information is realized and processed by the brain, but before it's put into storage in memory. Sort of like a computer, consciousness is the activity in the system while it's turned on and actively doing things.

      Just cloning the data, so to speak, doesn't really get you immortality or what most people want, since while you would create 'you' in the sense that it would contain all the data/memories you had up to the point of the clone, the unique consciousness/active experience of the universe that is YOU wouldn't be captured in that process. Same problem with cloning yourself and then transferring all of your memories -- it's another spark/life/soul/consciousness that happens to be accessing and acting on your memories.

      So, assuming that's true, the only way to really "upload" your consciousness or transfer it would be through a process that slowly replaced your biological brain cells and neural paths with artificial ones, similar to the way the brain incorporates new cells as old ones die off, until there was no more biological brain left and everything existed completely in the synthetic construct. This also, of course, assumes that everything that makes up our being and experience is kept in the brain and in a way that can be supplanted by an artificial system.

    6. Re:We actually have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, stop with all this scanning shit. Instead, focus on a single, uniform platform that is well known and easy to simulate, then implant the patient with some implants that link the simulation with the still living organic brain.

      You do realize that even the scanning part will need to wait a very long time, let alone the rest of what you suggest, right?

      But I'm curious who or what that statement is even directed to? Is some other company out there doing brain scanning at the moment?

      You must forgive me for not being aware of any such beast due to the current topic being Nectome, who doesn't do that...

      Nectome's approach is not dissimilar to the body freezing/thawing-later operations.
      All they are doing is preserving the brain at the moment of death.
      Like the body freezing operations, they are completely banking on humanity to gain the ability to figure out the scanning part in the future. They aren't doing it now because we don't know how at the moment.

      Although most of the professional responses to this are about as incorrect as yours is.

      Most neuroscientists think the ability to recapture memories from brain tissue and re-create a consciousness inside a computer is at best decades away and probably not possible at all.

      OK I'll give "at best decades away" a pass purely for using the qualifier "at best" and at least pluralizing "decades", after all even 1000 years can be represented as a number of decades.

      But not possible? We know of literally NO law of physics that supports that, and have many that prove it to be wrong.
      That's basically claiming a human brain is "probably not possible at all" to exist in our universe, flying in the face of the fact that stupidity came right from one of those not possible brains that exists.

      But back on point, no one does brain scanning now for any purposes other than furthering knowledge. Which is only done on dead brains. With no claim or even expectation that dead stats would change.
      Hell a decade ago the state-of-the-art required slicing the brain up into layers a fraction of a mm thick, aka far far too wide to be of use in capturing all the neurons.
      Plus that scanning was/is only to get a tiny sample set of a small number of neurons to see how those specific ones interconnected, there was never any real attempts to map all of them at once, let alone all of them at once in a short enough time span to usefully reconstruct anything of the whole system.

      Right now we don't even know all of the things that would need scanned, so it's pretty difficult to build a tool that would capture everything needed.

      That part of the process is being dumped in the lap of future humans in the hope they have figured all that out.
      Which to be fair is the only possibility right now, since we do know for sure that our past and present selves don't have this ability.
      It's only our future selves we have no idea about. Clearly brains can exist in this universe and our laws of physics, so the answer isn't a definitive "no", but with our current knowledge there is no way to give a definitive "yes" either.

      It's pure hope based on faith. But if the people signing up for this really understand that and the situation wasn't misrepresented to them, I don't see anything unethical about allowing it.

    7. Re:We actually have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The brain is not a computational device.

      If we could scan a brain with sufficient accuracy to create a computational model, that would be a model that could simulate the chemistry and physics of a small volume of real space. If we could simulate the chemistry and physics of some volume of real space, it would not matter in the slightest if that simulation was based on brain tissue, or a soccer ball, or the Hope diamond - and if one of those simulations was considered to be a computational device, all of them would be.

    8. Re:We actually have no idea... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The brain is not a computational device.

      Citation or proof needed. There is no evidence that the brain can run any algorithm that a classical computer cannot run.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. The summary is wrong. by sonoronos · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary reads "MIT will terminate the research contract with Media Lab professor and neuroscientist Edward Boyden."

    This statement is false. If you read the article, you will see the following statement: "Professor Boyden has no personal affiliation -- financial, operational, or contractual -- with the company Nectome."

    Boyden's adviser, Deisseroth, developed CLARITY. One part of Boyden's ressearch, among many other things, involves using his adviser's CLARITY method to perform imaging of neurobiological samples (that is, expansion microscopy.)

    What the article DOES say is "MIT is party to a subcontract under an NIMH small business grant awarded to Nectome, with the Boyden group working on an academic research project to combine aspects of Nectome's chemistry with the Boyden group's invention, expansion microscopy," What this means is that someone on Boyden's team was doing research with Nectome's chemistry along with Boyden's expansion microscopy method.

    Therefore, the correct summary is, "MIT will terminate the research contract with Nectome." full stop.

    These are respectable researchers and I feel we have to make a strong effort to make sure the correct story is told.

    1. Re:The summary is wrong. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The summary reads "MIT will terminate the research contract with Media Lab professor and neuroscientist Edward Boyden."

      So they're not also terminating neuroscientist Edward Boyden? Seemed a little harsh anyway.

  6. Bob 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the beginning of We Are Bob.

  7. Correction by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. For many years I've said cigarettes were the only product that proved to be fatal 100% of the time (nearly, at least) if used as intended (for long enough, anyway).

    Promoting euthanasia is one thing, and I support it under some circumstances. If you want to promote brain embalming and "digital brain uploads," that's fine too - sounds intriguing. But if your "upload" requires euthanasia, you're a quacky snake oil salesman and nothing more, because the technology to replicate brains digitally simply doesn't exist. This company is going nowhere.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Unless this is intentional? The thing is, assisted dying is illegal in much of the world, including most of the USA. However, "brain uploading" which "may" prove fatal could be a legal procedure if the company is careful.

      What if the lab is looking for a way to legally help people with assisted dying and are dressing it up with futuristic-sounding BS to make a loophole? They're not "killing" people, they're just "uploading" them in a way which may be fatal.

      People who want to shuffle off this mortal coil may be willing to pay for a painless, always fatal "upload" procedure in place of a doctor-assisted (and illegal in most places) assisted death.

    2. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breathing (for long enough, anyway) also results in death 100% of the time.

    3. Re:Correction by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      However, "brain uploading" which "may" prove fatal could be a legal procedure if the company is careful.

      Could be. Because courts like never ever consider intent, and if they did they wouldn't include things like foreseeable probable consequences and stuff.

      It is rather surprising that many people are campaigning to legalise euthanasia when they could have just called DeVry and asked you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is amusing as the reason everyone is shocked about this firm is they are marketing it honestly as "this will kill you and leave behind a model brain that we hope will be useful to future scientists".

      Most of these sort of firms (cryonics) claim that the preservation will allow you to come back and that you're "preserved" in a reversible state.

    5. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

  8. Human can't fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time they say Humans are not equipped with wings, so we are not supposed to fly

    Now another bunch of folks are saying brain uploading is impossible

    Who knows what will be invented in the future?

    1. Re: Human can't fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the far far future.

      ftfy.

    2. Re: Human can't fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think things are difficult, therefore all progress is impossible. PROOF.

  9. Call me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... when they develop a working neural lace prototype.

    (Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

    --

    Check out my novel

  10. Anyone know how these jokers by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    got a fed grant worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'm not opposed to government grants for science (much the opposite in fact) and I realize that some waste will slip through here and there (I'm looking at you, life sized replica of Noah's Ark paid for by the people of Kentucky) but this one seems like a no-brainer (pun intended).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Anyone know how these jokers by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      TFS and TFT are wrong - all these people were offering is good brain freezing in hopes of future reconstruction. That part might be useful for certain types of surgery, space travel, etc.

      I don't think there should be any government funding of research (save for the "Navy" under the Constitution) but its not hard to see real applications of said technology.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. This is what happens.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you have credible yet ignorant people like Hawkins, Gates, Musk and others make grandiose claims about AI.

    No, were not anywhere near developing an artificial brain. No neural nets are not like your brain any more than your sump pump is like your heart.

    We don't even know what we don't know about consciousness and there are areas the size of a man"s fist in your brain we barely have any understanding of at all. No your jobs aren't going to be taken away "soon" and leave us all unemployed.

    AI hype is about hyping investors out of their cash. This company was just an especially pritine exemplar.

    1. Re:This is what happens.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you have credible yet ignorant people like Hawkins, Gates, Musk and others make grandiose claims about AI.

      Hawkins is a town and a lab, not a credible, ignorant person.

  12. Impossible? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    I could agree with the premise that it may not be possible (using our current basis for technology) to simulate a brain in realtime but I see no reason why it would be impossible to digitize a brain, just like any other physical object. Either way, it's not "you" but rather the concept of "you".

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Impossible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could agree with the premise that it may not be possible (using our current basis for technology) to simulate a brain in realtime but I see no reason why it would be impossible to digitize a brain, just like any other physical object. Either way, it's not "you" but rather the concept of "you".

      /quote

      Modern AI is based on a lot of training using collected data. If you could improve the data collected from a brain, you might eventually be able to collect enough to make a bad copy. I'm guessing you'd almost need some kind of brain implants to get the sensor data in the required detail, but dunno. I doubt it happens in my lifetime, and I for one don't really think making machines as smart as humans is a good idea, even if we figure out how to do it. Also as a person is the sum of his experiences, plus genetics, etc, etc, the data would have to be collected for a very long time to get the best results.

      Of course if you don't care about fidelity and just want something that passes cursory inspection, well I'd have bet your could simulate Trump with today's tech such that the average person can't if it is a bot or trump using twitter.

    2. Re:Impossible? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      My guess is that mind uploading is impossible with current technology and what is preserved by their process is insufficient for mind uploading with hypothetical future technology.
      I am not a neuroscientist but my understanding is that brain activity goes beyond connections between neurons. And I don't think any embalming process is able to preserve the entire chemical state of the brain.

  13. This just makes me think of Mortal Kombat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "FATALITY"

  14. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    severing their connection to the startup was a no brainer

  15. 90% fatal means you can survive by aepervius · · Score: 1

    e.g. shooting yourself in the head is not 100% fatal. But in this case, the procedure always lead to brain death.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  16. Animal trials first by Rande · · Score: 1

    Brain uploads aren't possible _yet_.
    So why not do animal trials first and put them in a robot body and see if the uploaded brain does the same things.

    And then in maybe 500 years, we might be ready to test on human volunteers.

  17. What's new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the government gets scammed once again. What's new?

  18. What Nectome is really up to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, they are trying to construct a philosophers stone.