It is possible to conceive of the human brain as a computer. However, this analogy is not exact since it is not yet possible to reboot or turn on human consciousness on a whim. The brain is a biological computer, so it adheres to the law of nature, including the law of dying. The usage and functioning of human brains after death is quite complex since it is connected to such phenomena as consciousness, memory, and the ethical side of conducting experiments. The mentioned aspects have a great influence on the future of the experiment and determine whether the experiment will be conducted on human beings.
One of the latest miracles of neuroscience is the possibility to keep the brain alive for some short period after the declaration of death with the help of perfusion. In the article “Scientists Are Giving Dead Brains New Life. What Could Go Wrong?”, Matthew Shaer tells his readers the story of a scientist named Nenad Sestan who spent years researching and experimenting with dead tissue and brains. Sestan’s goal was to find the best possible way to keep a brain functioning even after death. In order to reach the goal, the scientist has applied diverse methods and performed a range of experiments. One of these methods was perfusion, which is a way of mimicking blood flow through the brain so that the brain would think that it is still alive. Although they managed to keep the brain alive for a short period, this discovery still leads to groundbreaking technology to treat people that have been in terminal states.
The scientists used electrocorticography to get electromagnetic signals from the brain as it was in perfusion. In fact, the team could get a few signals. However, the brain could not function for a long time after starting to deteriorate. This idea made me interested in the ability of the brain to operate during perfusion. A few of the key questions related to the topic are whether the brain has thoughts during perfusion and whether it is conscious and sentient or just a blank mind built up of tissues.
The death of the brain and being alive is thoroughly connected to the notion of consciousness. Therefore, it would be better first to define what consciousness is. However, the definition of consciousness comes as one of the largest obstacles and challenges in such fields as neuroscience and psychology. For the time being, consciousness can be understood as “the set of properties regulated by the posterior cortex can arguably be deemed reductionist” (Bitar 8). Nonetheless, the theory of ‘localized consciousness’ seems to be quite contradictory. In fact, the removal of significantly large portions of the frontal cortex does not always lead to a significant influence on consciousness or awareness-related problems. This fact can be proven by the findings on whole-brain awareness as well as the ability of patients with paralyzed spinal cord to feel, think, and have a sense of self (Bitar 8). Therefore, it would be wiser to take into consideration Roger Sperry’s perception of consciousness. Sperry states that consciousness is not just a functional outcome of the brain, but a “holistic form of control over the flow pattern of cerebral excitation” (532). Consciousness is a quite complicated phenomenon that cannot be localized just in one particular area of the body.
It is not reality but the human brain that gives colors, odors, and tastes to the surroundings by transferring data into a sensory experience. In Brain: The Story of You, the author points out that many aspects of life are not processed by consciousness. Eagleman states that the human brain receives a great number of signals coming from the external and eternal environment that is translated then into electrochemical signals and carried by neurons (Eagleman). In this case, it can be said that if Sestan’s team got some signals that might indicate the presence of consciousness inside the brain.
The experiment in question includes some contradictory findings and uncertainties. According to the article, the chances of consciousness emerging from ex vivo perfused brains are incredibly low because of channel blockers (Shaer). At the same time, there is a possibility of a worst-case scenario, when the revived brain starts to relive the moments of death and can be trapped in the nightmare of the past events that led to the act of dying. The article also includes the quote said by one member of the N.I.H.’s Neuroethics Working Group: “Imagine the ultimate sensory-deprivation tank. No inputs. No outputs. In your brain, nobody can hear you scream”(Shaer). This quote can be named mind-blowing since it highlights the possibility of the brain to have only thoughts are memories that are connected to the process of being killed. Furthermore, it indicates that such consciousness would be extremely limited. Therefore, the aspect of consciousness of revived brain raises many questions that cannot be answered yet.
The act of conducting the experiment on people might be considered unethical. The only possible way to find out the truth is to ask people who have undergone advanced technology operation, which sounds unreal and unethical for the time being. Such revived brains can be seen as zombies or physical analogs of the living and sentient human brain. It is quite probable that the revived brain might only mimic sentient human consciousness and the sense of self. As a consequence, it is difficult to predict when this technology could be used on humans. The worst-case scenario makes the use of this technology seem unethical in regard to human beings.
The similarity of mammal and human brains comes in handy in such experiments. Brains of rats and mice possess many features and characteristics similar to the human brain. It is not a coincidence that rats play an essential role in many areas of research, including neuroscience experiments. For example, it is mentioned that humans and rats have practically the same organization of the cerebral cortex and the outer layer (Shaer). At the same time, rat brains are bigger than those of mice. As a consequence, rat brains are used more often in neuroscientific research. As can be seen, the rat brain can assist in predicting the results of what might happen to the human brain in the same circumstances. The same goes for porcine brains that were used in the given experiment. In fact, porcine brains have the same morphological features and neuronal structure. However, it would be optimal to experiment on different species of mammals.
The human brain can be perceived as complex arrangements of matter. Nenad Sestan managed to restore cellular functionality of porcine dead brains. The scientist and his team also succeeded in minimizing the deteriorating influence of death on the brain and save its neuronal architecture. All these results are remarkable and mind-blowing. Nevertheless, restoration of the dead brain is not likely to lead to the restoration of consciousness. On the other hand, if it leads to this restoration of consciousness, there is no guarantee that the brain would not be captured by nightmares of dying.
Works Cited
Bitar, Maina. “Are Brain Organoids Equivalent to Philosophical Zombies?” Preprints, March 2020.
Eagleman, David. The Brain: The Story of You. Vintage, 2017.
Shaer, Matthew. “Scientists Are Giving Dead Brains New Life. What Could Go Wrong?” Nytimes.Com, 2019. Web.
Sperry, Roger. “A modified Concept of Consciousness.” Psychological Review, vol. 76, no. 6, 1969, pp. 523-536.