Possibility of Transferring Human Memories to Computers
The concept of transferring one’s consciousness to a computer has captured imaginations for years, often appearing in cyberpunk fiction and ventures funded by wealthy investors seeking immortality. Interestingly, a recent study suggests that a notable number of neuroscientists believe it’s feasible to extract memories from a preserved brain and store them digitally.
This research, featured in the journal PLOS One, indicates that most neuroscientists see memory as having a physical foundation. On average, they estimate a 40% chance that we could eventually replicate human brain functions. However, there seems to be no clear agreement on the specifics of that physical basis, emphasizing how much remains unknown about the essence of memory.
Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston, a neuroscientist at Monash University and author of The Future Loves You: How and Why We Should Abolish Death, led a survey involving 312 neuroscientists, both specialists in memory and those from broader neuroscience backgrounds. The aim was to gauge their opinions on the practicality of preserving a human brain and the subsequent retrieval of its memories.
The researchers noted that while the idea of extracting memories from preserved brains might sound strange and speculative, it sheds light on how scientists conceptualize memory formation.
Survey results reveal widespread agreement among neuroscientists that memories likely have a physical component rather than depending solely on a fleeting process that halts upon preservation. Many believe these memories are stored within the synaptic connections between neurons, which adapt based on experiences. Notably, 70% of respondents concurred that memories consist of a physical, molecular record—stored in stable changes to neural connections and interactions among proteins and cellular elements—that could theoretically be photographed.
That said, the authors pointed out that the surveyed scientists did not reach a firm consensus on which neurophysiological aspects are essential for memory storage. Opinions varied on the required resolution for memory extraction, ranging from the atomic-level composition of biomolecules to the nanoscopic intricacies of subcellular structures. This lack of agreement stems from the ongoing debate about the exact nature of memory’s physical basis.
The survey also explored whether current technologies could preserve a brain’s structure sufficiently for memory extraction. Achieving such preservation is challenging, as freezing can harm neural tissue. One potential method is aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation, which merges chemical fixation with vitrification—a technique that rapidly cools materials, making them solid like glass. When neuroscientists were asked to assess the likelihood of successfully extracting memories from a cryopreserved brain, their estimates varied broadly, with a median probability around 40%.
Authors also questioned participants about the feasibility of emulating an entire brain—essentially uploading a person’s mind to a computer. This opens doors to the idea of transferring one’s consciousness to machinery. Again, the median probability was about 40%, though individual responses varied widely.
“That’s not a definitive yes,” Zeleznikow-Johnston remarked. “It shows there isn’t a full consensus that this will definitely work, but also it’s far from a negligible chance. I think many in the field see a real opportunity here, and my guess is this number might increase as we improve in brain emulation and related technologies.”
According to the study, neuroscientists believe we still have a long road ahead before successfully recreating a complete human brain. When asked about a timeline for such advancements, respondents suggested the year 2125 as a probable estimate.
Nonetheless, it certainly gives one something to ponder.
