We can currently do transplants of lungs, kidneys, livers, etc. if those organs are damaged or diseased. Will we ever be able to do so with brains? I've heard a lot about the possibility of growing replacement organs in vitro or using 3-D printers to create replacement organs. When will we be able to do so with brains? What obstacles lie in the way?
You don't transplant brain , you transplant the body. The body is to serve the brain and not the other way.
The issue with transplantation of a brain is that you would have to take the whole brain and spine together, untangle every nerve and put it back where it came from. Also you would have to find some way of ensuring that the blood surplie NEVER stopped because if it did you just have a vegetable
Good points, Asguard. Here's the deal about brain transplants and/or body transplants: The technology that will allow for such procedures will also be the same technology that allows for cloned bodies, body parts, artificial limbs, cybernetic enhancements as well as nano and nenetic technologies. So, while we might envision a "brain" transplant, in order to carry one out, you'd need a perfect match or a cloned body. In order to "insert" the brain, you'd need nano-technology to repair and re-attach all the damaged nerve cells. The technology that will allow for such things will, as a byproduct, negate the necessity for such a procedure. When that day arrives, our genes will be so enhanced with new information: Imagine knowing EXACTLY what every strand of DNA and accompanying mechanisms did in your cells. Now imagine a human being with a body "built" with 100 pairs of chromosomes instead of a measly 23. Imagine all the extra abilities. Imagine all those "enhanced" abilities augmented even FURTHER with cybernetic technology and nano technology. The cybernetics can literally be "grown" into you on a sub-cellular level. This may seem crazy, but it's precisely the direction we're going. And it's the ONLY way such a transplant would be possible (through these technologies), and--as I said--any such technology totally removes the need. You can simply conduct repairs on a sub-cellular level and then enhance the body in any way imaginable within the laws of physics. ~String
Reconnect their vascular systems to make it possible to provide the new brain with oxygen and glucose? Yes. Reconnect the central nervous system and peripheral nerves? Not anytime soon; too complex.
You missed the point. Most of the DNA we posses, including the myriad of other life forms with more DNA, is junk. Once we start designing ourselves the way we want, we can re-engineer our DNA to include vast amounts of information. We may be able to give our offspring an advantage by giving them abilities that will take up FAR more storage than our current DNA allotment allows. ~String
But if you can create a brain with the same memories and personality (but minus any tumors, etc.) in a test-tube, how is that any different than a brain with the same memories and personality in a human skull? In other words, if the newly transplanted brain has the same memories and personality as a brain with a tumor that was removed and discarded, how is that any different from surgically removing the tumor?
Because a new brain is a new entity. And despite it being--for example--100% the same at its creation as its predecessor, doesn't mean that they aren't, from the moment of awakening, two entities. The former brain/person does not cease to be real or less valuable just because an identical entity is created. From the moment of their creation, onwards, their personalities will begin to drift as they encounter new environments and assimilate different experiences. ~String
We could indeed. If we were to do that, our genome would get far shorter, as much of the non-coding DNA would be eliminated. Unlikely. DNA is not like computer memory; it is not a linear collection of information, each an incremental addition onto the last bit. It is a complex, highly interconnected blueprint for transcription of proteins, and it is nearly impossible to add just one phenotypical feature without affecting everything else. We could, of course, start from scratch and eliminate those interdependencies and vestiges that are our evolutionary legacy, create a new organism that codes for structure in an entirely new way. If we did that, the resulting organism would not be even remotely human.
That's equivalent to asking: If you had a twin, and he had the same memories and basic personality that you had, and you had a deadly tumor - wouldn't killing you and replacing you with him be the same as just removing the tumor? After all, he's basically the same.
currently no, the vascular problems are probably able to be overcome, after all bipases are done for the caroteds in order to clean or replace them and so you PROBABLY could bypass the bodies blood surplie but to retach all the pereferal nerves in EVERY part of the body? not a hope in hell, you have nerves wraped around every organ, all through the skin, mussles, every part of you and all of those need to be reconected to the CNS.
That is precisely what I'm saying and it is precisely where I think we will end up. We are an evolved creature. There was a time, far enough back, where our ancestors were not human. There will be a time, far enough into the future, where our descendants will not be human. I see no reason, given enough knowledge, why we should not redesign ourselves. We have stopped evolution by natural selection because of ethical concerns (which is good), the only way to keep evolving is to take the reins ourselves and tinker ourselves into whatever comes next. I'm not squeamish about it nor am I nostalgic enough to say that we should remain forever handicapped. This includes adding genetic information for a whole host of instincts, with which we can now be born instead of trained. Genetic information for better eyes, more powerful brains, maybe larger brains, stronger muscles, better immune systems. And all that, we can enhance even further by inorganic pieces here and there. ~String
Also, what about artificial brains made of, say, silicon? We have artificial hearts? Could we one day transplant artificial brains (i.e. non-biological brains) into patients with brain tumors? Has IBM already helped us get closer to that (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14574747)?
It's not quite as simple as that. While some of our non-coding DNA may truly be junk, other genes that don't code for a protein are very likely not. There are genes which do not code for a protein that still affect the work of other genes that do code. Part of the environment that affects the selection of genes is the other genes they share a body with. Like I said, not so simple.
If you had such a twin, he would be "you". He would have just as much of a claim to being "you" as you do.
Well, except: 1) There are plenty of identical twins out there that have the same memories and basic personality, and they still remain separate beings. 2) The person being killed would probably disagree that the twin was, in fact, him.
