Digital Immortality of the Future – Or, Advancements in Brain Emulation Research
This post was written as part of a class assignment from students who took a neuroethics course with Dr. Rommelfanger in Paris of Summer 2016.![]() |
| Image courtesy Wikimedia. |
According to Anders Sandberg, a research associate at Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, the idea is “to take a particular brain, scan its structure in detail at some resolution, construct a software model of the physiology that is so faithful to the original that, when run on appropriate hardware, it will have an internal causal structure that is essentially the same as the original brain” [4]. This may seem like bizarre science fiction. However, this goal may not so far off in the distant future. In 2011, Dmitry Itskov, a Russian entrepreneur, found the 2045 Initiative, a project working with a network of global scientists towards cybernetic immortality by “[creating] an artificial brain in which to transfer the original individual consciousness” [5, 6]. Massive computational power and multiple brain scans are rapidly developing these holistic large-scale computational brain models and algorithms, making it possible to upload the entirety of our memories onto the computer in the future [3, 7, 8]. Immortality, what once was a historical precedent failure, is becoming a feasible and inevitable feature to human life – which we should be allowed to pursue if we see death as a mass epidemic.
- Should we be testing animals for brain emulation research?
- With brain emulation research, animal experiments will be required. The progression of the research will most like start with in vitro experiments followed by experimentation of invertebrates and eventually, to primates before we can emulate human brains [4]. However, the question lies more with: how much suffering is necessary for this research? Quantifying and justifying suffering is difficult in itself and will vary depending on the study. Animal experimentation for brain emulation research should continue to fall under the current status quo animal research ethics guideline [10]. However, poor outcomes of the animal model brain emulation should halt human brain emulation research.
- Who owns the brain emulation products?
- In animal brain emulations, the company that funds the experiments owns the products, results, and intellectual property of the research. In human brain emulations, all parties involved: the company who owns the technology, the original, and the upload will inherently handle the memories but ownership should reside in the original and the upload, assuming both have the same consciousness. Technically, the company should only be able to use the information however they want (the same terms when we upload files on Google Drive) but they do not own it [11]. In a study, the participants and researcher should own that data after the study is complete.
- How do you upload a continuous stream of memories without the invasion of privacy? On the same train of thought, can the memories be sorted out?
- By uploading a continuous stream of memories, the consenting person is waiving his/her right to the privacy of the memories. Human brain emulation requires the entirety of the memories, so it should not be dissected and picked apart [3]. Since people are the components of their experiences, there should not be experiences added or removed. Otherwise, there is the risk of the emulated brain not representing the original human.
- Will everyone have an equal chance for immortality?
- This boils down to the question of access. Realistically no, not everyone will have an equal chance, and certainly not when the technology is first available – especially if this research is privately funded [5, 6]. The rich will have access to digital immortality first, and this limited access will widen the gap between rich and poor [9]. Even if the technology became more affordable, the rich will continue to have the most advanced updates while the rest receive the trickle-down of the technology. However, this does not mean we should not continue to pursue this technology. If one group’s lives cannot be elongated, this does not mean we should not elongate the other group’s lives.
- Do the uploads get the same rights as humans?
- Yes, the uploads should get the same rights as originals’ rights because they are the extension of the previous life. This is in the case of the originals who have their rights taken (ex: prison).
![]() |
| Transhumanism. Image courtesy of Gizmoto. |
References
1. Pew Research Center. 2013. Living to 120 and Beyond: Americans’ Views on Aging, Medical Advances and Radical Life Extension. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-beyond-americans-views-on-aging-medical-advances-and-radical-life-extension/ (accessed June 19, 2016).
2. Friedman, L. 2015. ‘One of society’s greatest achievements’ — in a simple chart of the past 175 years. Insider UK, June 19. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-throughout-history-2015-6?r=US&IR=T (accessed June 19, 2016).
3. Parkin, S. 2015. Back-up brains: The era of digital immortality. BBC Future, January 23. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150122-the-secret-to-immortality (accessed June 19, 2016).
4. Anders Sandberg (2014) Ethics of brain emulations, Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 26:3, 439-457, DOI: 10.1080/0952813X.2014.895113
5. 2045 Initiative. 2012. 2045 Strategic Social Initiative. Available at: http://2045.com/ (accessed June 19, 2016).
6. Bolton, D. 2016. Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov seeks ‘immortality’ by uploading his brain to a computer. Independent UK, March 14. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dmitry-itskov-2045-initiative-immortality-brain-uploading-a6930416.html (accessed June 19, 2016).
7. Beloussov, S. 2016. Digital immortality: How to create an external copy of yourself. Beta News, February 26. Available at: http://betanews.com/2016/02/26/digital-immortality-how-to-create-an-eternal-copy-of-yourself/ (accessed June 19, 2016).
8. Than, K. 2006. The Ethical Dilemmas of Immortality. Live Science, May 23. Available at: http://www.livescience.com/10465-ethical-dilemmas-immortality.html (accessed June 19, 2016).
9. National Academy of Sciences. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th ed. Available at: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-Care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf (accessed June 19, 2016).
10. Whittaker, Z. 2012. Who owns your files on Google Drive? CNET, April 24. Available at: http://www.cnet.com/news/who-owns-your-files-on-google-drive/ (accessed June 19, 2016).
11. NPR. 2012. What Animals Can Teach Humans About Healing. Available at: http://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154523594/what-animals-can-teach-humans-about-healing (accessed June 19, 2016).
12. Yuan, X., & Devine, D. (2016). The role of anxiety in vulnerability for self-injurious behaviour: Studies in a rodent model. Behavioural Brain Research, 311, 201-209. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2016.05.041
Want to cite this post?
Bui, K. (2016). Digital Immortality of the Future – Or, Advancements in Brain Emulation Research. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2016/09/digital-immortality-of-future-or.html


I believe that immortal is not a myth anymore, though many doubts whether is immortality possible even now. This content is one such info for them. Thanks for sharing this in here.
ReplyDelete
it sounds soo funny
ReplyDelete