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

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.

Comments

100 percent fatal

[Camel Pilot]

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

Re:100 percent fatal

[Anonymous Coward]

> Fatal is sort of a binary thing.

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

Re:100 percent fatal

[FatdogHaiku]

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!

Re: 100 percent fatal

[Anonymous Coward]

Should *have*, you cretin.

Re:100 percent fatal

[tomhath]

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

Re:100 percent fatal

[gweihir]

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

Re:100 percent fatal

[omnichad]

Fatal is sort of a binary thing.

Not in aggregate groups.

We actually have no idea...

[LetterRip]

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.

Re:We actually have no idea...

[wierd_w]

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."

Re:We actually have no idea...

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:We actually have no idea...

[TheRaven64]

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.

The summary is wrong.

[sonoronos]

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.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[omnichad]

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.

Correction

[uvajed_ekil]

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.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Correction

[Hognoxious]

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.

Anyone know how these jokers

[rsilvergun]

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).

Re: Anyone know how these jokers

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Impossible?

[Gravis Zero]

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".

Re:Impossible?

[GuB-42]

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.

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

severing their connection to the startup was a no brainer

90% fatal means you can survive

[aepervius]

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

Animal trials first

[Rande]

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.

Re: So social media, 3D printing

[sabri]

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?