The survey asked neuroscientists whether they could extract memories from the dead. That’s what they say
The charm and horror of transferring your consciousness to computers has long been the feed for cyberpunk novels and billionaire-backed monumental startups. But, according to a new study, a large percentage of neuroscientists believe that memories can be extracted from preserved brains and stored in computers.
The study, published in the journal PLOS One, shows that most neuroscientists believe that memory has a physical basis and that on average, we may one day be able to mimic the human brain. However, there is little consensus on the exact basis of physical foundations, which highlights the fact that we know very little about what memory.
The authors investigated 312 neuroscientists (including memory experts and general neuroscientists) to make them feasibility of retaining the human brain and subsequently extracting their memories. It is led by Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston, a neuroscientist at Monash University in Australia. The Future Loves You: How and Why We Abolish Death.
The problem of extracting memories from preserved brains is “weird and speculative”, the researchers wrote, but they provide insight into how neuroscientists view memory formation.
The results of the investigation show that neuroscientists largely agree that memory has a physical substrate rather than relying on a dynamic process that stops under preservation. They may be stored in synaptic connections between neurons, which are enhanced and weakened by experience. The survey shows that 70% of neuroscientists agree that there is a physical, molecular record of memory (stored in stable changes in neural connectivity, interactions between proteins and other cellular components – in theory, you could use that snapshot.
However, “there is no clear consensus on the exact neurophysiological characteristics or scales that are critical to memory storage.” The scientists investigated disagree with the resolution of nano-level resolution from the atomic composition of biomolecules to the subcellular structures, which would require the extraction of memories from the preserved brain. This is largely due to the fact that although most neuroscientists agree that memory has a physical basis, it is still possible to debate what that basis is.
The survey also asked whether existing tools theoretically retain the brain’s structures well for extracting memories. The way the brain is preserved keeps proteins and cells intact is tricky because freezing can damage neural tissue. But one way neuroscientists can do this is through aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation, a technique that combines chemical fixation with vitrification, a process that converts matter into glass-like solids through rapid cooling. The study asked neuroscientists to assign a possibility of a memory that could be extracted from the cryopreserved brain. Participants gave extensive estimates, but the median probability was about 40%.
The authors ask neuroscientists how likely it is to imitate the entire brain (the whole brain (the human brain) from preserved neural tissue. This may turn on the possibility of uploading your entire self and consciousness to the machine. In this case, the median answer is again about 40%, although the authors point out that the answers change a lot again.
“Actually, this is not 100%,” Zeleznikow-Johnston told Iflscience. “It means there is no complete consensus in the community, and yes, that will certainly work, but it’s not 0.1%, or 0.01%. This is a large part of neuroscientists who think it’s very likely to work, and my guess is that we’ll get better over time over time because we’ll get better with these brains implants, and therefore, emulate all these other things.”
Neuroscientists believe we still have a long way to go before we can imitate the entire human brain, the study said. When asked when we can imitate the human brain, the respondent gave a median answer of 2125.
Still, it’s something to consider.
