Talk:Brain transplant

Comments

I agree with the objection to the merge. However, both articles are written in such a way that the two procedures could easily be mistaken for each other. I suggest editing both articles to remove this ambiguity and move all references to 'downloaders' to the current article. --Phils 14:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

redirecting 'downloading conciousness' to this page is wrong. there is another entire discourse on downloading conciousness that has nothing to do with growing new organic human bodies. It is quite possible to discuss downloading conciousness without discussing whole-body transplant, as only the ethical questions are related, the technical questions are likely not related at all.

---

Downloading (or uploading, as is prefered by transhumanists, et al.) does not consist of transfering a human brain into a robotic body, it consists of transfering the mind from an organic subtrate to a nonorganic substrate, often involving the replacement of neurons individually with computationally simulated equivalents until the entire brain exists within the simulation. - Augur

The page mind transfer covers all of these variants, and that's where "downloading conciousness" currently redirects. Bryan 02:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

People might actually want brain transplants if they ever become available as the alternative is death. while i personally don't agree with that train of thought - the possible vampire-like taking of someone else's body for one thing. i thought it best to report what other people have said on the matter.

PMelvilleAustin 21:02 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

"Both goals are often derided as insane or unethical by religious and social leaders, who point deep to the disruption and inequality immortality of any sort is likely to cause."

What?? - Omegatron

Was it a monkey or a dog?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.171.46 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The second citation [2] in the article relates to *Head Transplants,* not brain transplants. None of the other citations seem to relate to a brain transplant either, but rather implanting new tissue into the brain - the eighth [8] indicates that this was done in 1998, and is composed of a link to a news story that doesn't mention whether the procedure succeeded or not. The seventh citation [7] is from 1982, and relates to implantation of neurons into a mouse - which was successful.

Human stem cell-derived neurons have been implanted into mice, resulting in reduced seizures. Combined with the seventh [7] citation, this seems to indicate the reverse of what the article suggests - that the brain is in fact an immunologically privileged organ, to the extent that it can integrate tissue from other species. Human-to-mouse tissue transplants are common in research, and so-called gyandromorphs are organisms where some cells that function as if they were male, and other cells that function as if they were female.

In the Immune privilege article, another citation seems to be used out of context; rather than denying immune privilege in the brain, the paper seems to indicate that the immune privilege is a result of the immune system of the body. This is supported by [2], [7] and the link to the Harvard article I linked to, which is from November 2014 - thus making it the latest citation.

Head transplants seem to be impossible because they include tissue other than the brain - a true brain transplant featuring only the transplantation of neural tissue would probably not be rejected. If nature can produce gyandromorphs by accident, and humans can insert neurons into their own brains, as well as the brains of mice, than it would seem that a brain transplant is well within the realm of possibility.

However, a critical issue isn't addressed in this article, which is addressed in the citations; reconnecting damaged nerves. Whether it was a brain transplant or a head transplant, the severed spinal cord would need to be repaired. This is the real limiting factor in both transplants, and a solution seems to be available. As well, the neural tissue of the spinal cord, or even the entire neural net - composed of the CNS and PNS - might be transplanted.

I would like to rewrite the article to reflect these facts. Please give me the go-ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.207.147.243 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Also, for the procedure to be practical, the age of the donated body must be sufficient: an adult brain cannot fit into a skull that has not reached its full growth, which occurs at age 9–12 years." This is a joke, right? It's under "existing challenges" with no citations, as I doubt any real surgeon was planning to steal kids' bodies to pop adults' brains into them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.166.240 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal with head transplant

Whosyourjudas just proposed merging this article with head transplant. I don't think that's entirely appropriate, since a head transplant and a whole-body transplant are rather different things; whole-body transplantation is primarily the realm of fiction and philosophy, whereas head transplants have actually been performed on chimps and proposed as a serious medical procedure for use in the current real world. Some of the philosophical and moral issues are the same, but then they're also similar to some of the issues raised in Mind transfer so cross-linking the articles to refer to the discussion of them shouldn't be a problem. However, I can also see the point that these two procedures could indeed be similar enough to be worth covering in a unified manner, so I'm tossing the issue in here on talk: to see what other people think. Bryan 05:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be unreasonable. Since the head transplant article is so small (not much more than a stub), it would probably be best to redirect the title here and put its text in as a section. BobGreenwade 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do know brain transplant is practiced by some such as child combat programmes and governments and maybe head transplant too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F3B6:400:122:AA87:33A:D5F0 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

BrainTrans hoax

There is this one site that claims it has been done, though it look legitimate, there are certain things in it that might give it away that it isn't. Of course our first reaction is that it is indeed a hoax. I'm wondering if we should add in some informaiton about this site and tell that that thought they have no proof that they have actually done it, that they offer brain transplants. BrainTrans http://216.247.9.207/bthtml/about.htm

This is a hoax/gag site. The main problem currently with WBTs is the nerve-healing issue (which I recently added in to the main article). Before there can be a successful transplant this issue must be resolved (though from all I've read it really is the last hurdle to the possibility). Still, a link to this site (probably at this link) with that disclaimer, explaining that it's what such a procedure might look like in the end, probably wouldn't hurt. BobGreenwade 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved to this section:

Is this site: here, a hoax, or is this operation possible? I think they are just scammers, but.... -- ChessManXI 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the link noting "hoax / humor". If the link is not appropriate as humor, then it may be as hoax warning.--Patrick 12:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Title Change?

Just out of curiousity, does anyone else think that 'Brain Transplant' would be a better name for this article? The two terms seem to be interchangable (judging from the first sentence), and brain transplant is less likely to confuse the average reader.

The term "Brain Transplant" already redirects here for those searching under that term. "Whole-body transplant" is (from what I've gathered) what the procedure is being called medically. BobGreenwade 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If "whole-body transplant" is the correct medical term (for some weird bizzare reason) then it should stay that way. Most people, however, would call it a brain transplant since you're taking the brain out of a person and putting it into another person.

The reason is not bizarre or weird. Think of it from the patients perspective: When you wake up from sedation you have a totally new body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.167.76 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And you wouldn't find that bizarre or weird? —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

human cloning vs. brain transplant

"The procedure seems to be a far-off goal. However, it should be noted that human cloning seemed equally impossible a generation ago."

I removed it and it got reverted so I offer discussion.

That human cloning used to seem impossible is an observation completely peripheral to an article about brain transplants. It's an observation one arguing a point may make in conversation, but not something an encyclopedia would add matter-of-factly. I could just as easily counter with the technologies in fiction or of futurists that have not come to fruition by the year 2006. I submit that the second sentence imposes a POV concerning short-term feasability.--Loodog 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• The original quote said, "human cloning itself seemed impossible," so I misinterpreted your edit-out. (It wasn't exactly a revert so much as an alteration intended to fit the objection.) And I have seen such statements in printed encyclopedias (such as World Book and Brittanica). That said, your final statement is valid -- perhaps it could be changed to something like: "Today, the procedure seems to be an unlikely if not impossible goal. However, other technologies, such as human cloning, seemed equally impossible a generation ago." BobGreenwade 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pointless info

"In the final level of Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, players are given the choice to either use their brain as a replacement for the damaged vault computer or with General Barnaky's." This is exactly what I was hoping to learn...just what levels of what videogames this subject relates to. I think I should spin off a "how it relates to obscure games" encyclopedia.--Openman 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed??

First paragraph, about brain transplants: "The necessary technology currently needed exists to fully and safely perform this procedure."

As far as I'm aware this is false, although I'd love to see a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.238.142 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I also believe that the statement is false. I removed it, though I won't complain if the person who originally put the statement in wants to reinstate it (provided the same person supports it here). BobGreenwade (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

good call!--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 00:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Has anybody attempted a brain transplant

After all it was not that long ago that any sort of transplant was deemed to be impossible 88.110.147.235 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Robert White performed head transplants on monkeys in the 60s but the experiments were crude and pointless. Only the blood supply was connected. The head was kept alive but it wasn't able to control the body it was connected to since the nerves were completely severed. You'll have to find a way to reconnect the nerves for a head transplant to work. A brain transplant is much more difficult, as you will also need to reconnect the brain with the eyes, nose, mouth, etc. This is already mentioned in the article. 203.184.1.4 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Procedure that will never happen

The act of transplanting the brain of a human, weather it be the entire brain of just the essential conscious identity portions will never be undertaken. The reason for this is advances in stem cell technology which will eventually allow repair and regeneration of major organs and eventually skeletal and spinal tissue. And even certain brain tissue. Although neither is possible at present, the latter is obviously much easier and less risky. One would prefer if given the choice to simply regenerate the body they already posesses to a healthier younger state rather than the very dangerous procdure of transplanting their brain into a cloned (but brainless) version of their younger/healthier body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.53.8 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you be sure that you've eliminated all reasons for a brain transplant? Perhaps the original body is poisoned and needs to be cut away to protect the brain. —Tamfang (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A brain transplant could be useful for a person born with a genetic disease (ie. progeria (premature aging) & disorders of metabolism) for whom stem cell therapy is impossible. 203.184.1.4 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stem cell therapy + gene therapy is another story, though. —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What about transgendered people?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.62.250 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. A brain transplant would be great for those who want to change their gender. Although some people may also argue that the shock/trauma of not recognizing oneself in a mirror would negate the possible benefits. 203.184.0.142 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If the replacement body is a clone with one chromosome changed, the stranger in the mirror should look more like the original than some consumers of plastic surgery. —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about how useful it would be to transsexuals. Whole-body transplantation seems simpler than all the surgeries they have to go through, but I feel that the simplicity is an illusion. The brain is by far the most complicated organ in the human body, and no one really knows how well a human brain would adapt to a new body, let alone one of a different gender. Combine the medical challenges with the problems of getting a compatible donor's body, (and let's not forget the myriad of ethical and genetic issues that'd come with growing a brain-dead adult human clone) and it isn't such a neat solution anymore. If whole-body transplants become reality, I sincerely hope they will be restricted to life-or-death situations only. Prototypeone (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to add this aspect into the article, but it keeps getting removed. I could sit here all day trying to guess the exact format you want me to include it, or you could simply edit my changes to your satisfaction. Unless of course you just don't want this topic included in which case please let me know so I don't waste my time, and yours! If the issue is simply one of citation, then there are a myriad of articles on the subject, from a range of sources. I'm not sure which ones you would consider to be 'reliable' however. Besides the whole subject of human brain transplants is theoretical, there are no case studies and limited reasearch into the subject so its no more or less legimitate than the question of using dead criminals, depending on your own personal perspective of course. Nikiwiki246 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is "you"? Has it been removed by the same editor each time? —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

downloading

Similar in many ways to this is the idea of mind uploading .... However, while 'transplanting' sees the ultimate goal as being a new body optimized for that brain ... and a transfer of the brain to that body, in the almost equally speculative procedure of 'downloading', the brain itself moves nowhere and may even be physically destroyed or discarded; the goal is rather to duplicate the information patterns contained within the brain.

In this paragraph, do uploading and downloading mean the same thing?

Where the brain is copied (destructively or not) to a simulator, I think uploading is the apter word. To download is to copy a file from a bigger host (or a network) to a smaller (more local) computer. I wouldn't assume that it's possible to put a human mind in anything simpler than a human brain. (I suppose mind transfer could be considered "downloading" if the target is physically smaller than the original; would it be downloading to copy files from an old room-filling computer to a rack-mount server?)

The nearest thing to downloading that occurs to me in fiction is the practice of spinning off temporary subsets of a mind, to carry messages, e.g. the "ghosts" in The Bohr Maker by Linda Nagata; something similar appears briefly in (i think) Excession by Iain M. Banks. —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine "downloading" to a host that does not need the pieces of the human brain that manage balance and breathing, for example. —Tamfang (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarification

First of all, i’m absolutely ignorant in terms of medical training and such, so I apologize in advance if my question turns out to lack any sense. Here we go: in the paragraph “existing challenges” the brain is said to be “an immunologically privileged organ”. The ninth “external link”, though, has a comment stating that “the brain is no longer considered to be an immunologically privileged organ”. Unfortunately the link redirects to a non-existing page, so I’m not able to read the article and understand what this means. I looked around on the website but could find nothing. So, here’s my question: is the brain considered “an immunologically privileged organ” or not? In either case, I guess a part of the article needs to be modified, unless I got this all wrong and we’re talking about different things, or aspects, or whatever. (again, I have no medical training, so be patient if the question is silly, and if it’s not, I guess someone expert in the field should correct this article.) Thanks! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 13:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

An answer to the above: "Immunologically privileged sites were thought to include: - the brain, but this is now known to be incorrect and indeed immune cells of the CNS contribute to the maintenance of neurogenesis and spatial learning abilities in adulthood" from the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_privilege The reference given for this in the article is:

Ziv, Y.et al (2006). Nature Neuroscience, Immune cells contribute to the maintenance of neurogenesis and spatial learning abilities in adulthood 9, 268 - 275.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talk • contribs) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 

Possible move to brain transplant

As one can transplant parts of the nervous system (the nerves of skin, hands, and so on, together with the organs they belong to) so that they become parts of the physical basis of the perceptions — and that is, of the consciousness — of the receiver of the donation, it would appear logical that also a whole brain, when it is transplanted, could — yes — carry the consciousness of its former possessor with itself, but, on the other hand, also could be conquered by the consciousness of the person who all the rest of the newly combined body has belonged to. If no really good citation for the definition of the catchword is going to be provided, one could therefore ponder if this article should not be moved to brain transplant, which, at the moment, is a redirect to it.

It would then appear thinkable to use the catchword whole-body transplant for an article on the basis of sources on the possibility really to transplant the whole body — with the brain — to an other person, i.e. to the consciousness of this other person, which would very probably most likely be to be conducted by uploading the mind of the receiver of the transplant to the body of the donator, in a situation in which it would be determined that the donator's mind would, different than that of the receiver, not be able to hold the body to be donated together, any longer. Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but don't we already know that consciousness exists in the brain and the brain only, as a result of studying paraplegics? Nonetheless 'brain transplant' probably is a less ambiguous title than the present one, which is strictly inaccurate as the brain forms part of the body, and a brain transplant is therefore by definition not 'whole body'.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would not agree that we were sure consciousness did only exist in the brain. Looking at healthy people or at paraplegics — one only sees that the brain possesses a crucial role regarding consciousness. Phantom pains — which I know myself from some missing teeth — could, on the first glance, suggest that the brain is responsible for everything, but if one thinks about it more thoroughly, the existence of these perceptions questions such a one-sided concept, as it proves that perceptions can occur without a stimulation at the end of the nerves, so that our perceptions appear as something which goes to and fro, in both directions, within our nervous system. Also, the reports of hypnotized people who have been asked about the time before they were procreated by their parents tally so perfectly with what we hear of those who have been clinically dead for some minutes that it would, in the meanwhile, appear strongly inappropriate to persist in such a one-sided concept. Both the hypnotized and the clinically dead report, in many cases, that they have watched their bodies from outside (typically from above).

Given this, it would appear plausible to assume something like a consciousness circle. As the blood circle cannot function without the heart, such a consciousness circle could not function without the brain. But, like blood is, in spite of this, not only in the heart, but also in all the other blood vessels, consciousness would also be in all the other nervous structures (beyond just the brain); it would be some other substance and would also be able to be spilled.

Our new possibilities to compare historic figures enable us, since a few years, for the first time in history to check for the existence of possible regularities of such a consciousness circle, on a wider scale, and first hits like this one quite clearly suggest that such a search, conducted conscientiously, would deliver remarkable results.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of References to Fiction

All references to fictional accounts of this type of technology should be removed to another article, they serve no purpose other than to confuse the issue, as if to say this technology is utterly hypothetical and should be treated as fictional. Suffice it to say the technology to perform such a procedure exists, whether or not it's being used presently. Repeated citations of fictional accounts simply muddy the water and add grist to the mill for anyone who wants to engage in denialism on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.236.15 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Clearly the common name.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Whole-body transplant → Brain transplant – Less ambiguous title. - --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Relisted Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 06:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Rangoon11 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the ambiguity of the current title? Powers ^T 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The brain is part of the body, to a layman "whole-body" would include the brain. "Brain transplant" is wholly unambiguous however. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But if it included the brain, it wouldn't be a transplant at all. I can see the potential for some confusion, but not ambiguity. Ambiguity with a non-existent thing is not ambiguity at all. Powers ^T 15:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever one wishes to term it, the title is sub optimal in terms of clarity. Since a much clearer alternative exists, and is arguably more common (a very crude test - a Google search for "brain transplant" yields 314,000 results, one for "Whole body transplant" 295,000 results) a move seems to make sense to me. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support If you're moving a brain from one person body to another, that's literally a brain transplant. The current title suggests (maybe?) moving the rest of a body from one person (brain?) brain to another. Philosophically, perhaps we have the same result, but the proposed title is more clear and descriptive of how the procedure would occur. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • But the person moves with the brain, so it's not a transplant from one person to another at all. Powers ^T 17:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Do you mean "person" in a metaphysical sense? I didn't, so I've edited my comment for clarity. New text in italics. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see how else one might mean it. If you meant body, why did you write "person"? Powers ^T 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting comment It would be instructive to see how the sources refer to this procedure.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Google Scholar gives 1660 results for brain transplant, 28 for whole body transplant. With -wikipedia, regular Google results skew the same way, 318,000 to 33,300. WP:COMMONNAME should be considered. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per BDD. Also, whole-body transplant sounds like a fancy name, while brain transplant looks like the "normal" name that normal people would normally use. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Immunologically privileged or not?

I noticed in the Immune privilege article that it says that the brain isn't actually immunologically privileged. Which article is saying the truth? - 89.70.239.244 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is in many ways, but not completely in the same way as any other privileged organ. here and here, right?

(MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brain transplant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235236/http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917 to http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)