PDA

View Full Version : Head transplants?


C'jais
06-16-2003, 05:48 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/SecondOpinion/secondopinion_85.html

Jubatus
06-16-2003, 06:12 PM
Well, in the sense that the brain is the 'I' of a human and the body merely a tool to sustain it, the idea of a body transplant comes to me neither as grotesque nor as a surprise. But watch the religious and the spiritual get a field day out of this one ;)

C'jais
06-16-2003, 09:19 PM
Something I wondered about reading this:

Wouldn't we lose our "body memory" (so to speak) if this transplant occured? I mean, wouldn't I lose my ability to type well if I got a body that hadn't been "conditioned" to type well?

I wouldn't be surprised if the neurons in my hand would need to adapt to specific tasks.


Now for some questions: If you were terminally ill, would you get your head transplanted, so that you'd live on in another body?

What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on?

Jubatus
06-16-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Something I wondered about reading this:

Wouldn't we lose our "body memory" (so to speak) if this transplant occured? I mean, wouldn't I lose my ability to type well if I got a body that hadn't been "conditioned" to type well?

I wouldn't be surprised if the neurons in my hand would need to adapt to specific tasks.

I figure you'd have to adapt your fine motoring skills to your new body, yes. Assuming your new body has virtually the same measurements and proportions and that all nerves from your central nervous system to your new body were perfectly joint together I don't think it would take very long. And the basic, major motoring skills, like walking and jumping would come rather easily.

Originally posted by C'jais
Now for some questions: If you terminally ill, would you get your head transplanted, so that you'd live on in another body?

That's one of those questions you really can't answer that until you're in the situation. But if the procedure was perfected and the donor body satisfactory, I'd say definately maybe.

Originally posted by C'jais
What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on?

You'd have to be one hell of a naive narcissist to even contemplate that. Besides, you're contradicting yourself; '...you could only survive...' and '..."you" would be lost...". That the body lives on is irrelevant since the 'you' resides in your brain...As you said yourself.

I suppose that this head transplant business is another one of those sciences (or branch of a tree of science) that will meet with scorn and loathing for the first few generations for then to become a common everyday thing. Besides, it's only an extension of medical procedures that are common today, organ transplants.

SkinWalker
06-17-2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
Wouldn't we lose our "body memory" (so to speak) if this transplant occured? I mean, wouldn't I lose my ability to type well if I got a body that hadn't been "conditioned" to type well?

I wouldn't be surprised if the neurons in my hand would need to adapt to specific tasks.

I know that people who merely have their limbs re-attached need to undergo a lot of therapy to recover use of the limb. Also, there was a recent case of hand transplants... though I barely remember it from the news. I would think this, too, would require months, if not years, of rehabilitation and therapy.

I would hypothesize that the neurons in the body become accustomed to the brain's way of speaking to them... i.e. the amounts, frequencies, and durations of the neuromuscular use of ions like sodium, potassium and calcium and in different voltages.... I would tend to think that each body has different requirements based on its physical makeup and the brain's capabilities (think mental disorders from mild depression to ADD to bi-polar). I would also think that the brain would be "accustomed" to communicating with its body in many subtle ways, much the way you can tell what a best friend is thinking.

Having said all that, I think the problem of transplanting body parts is significantly difficult for the brain to handle at the small appendage level, why wouldn't it be proportionally difficult when changing out everything from the neck down?

Still, I look forward to reading more of this guy's research.

Originally posted by C'jais
Now for some questions: If you were terminally ill, would you get your head transplanted, so that you'd live on in another body?

Assuming that the process is perfected, at least to the point where the recovery chances are generally predictable, my answer would be: "Heck yeah." This is the only life I get... I'm going to make the most of it. I will claw, scrape and grab at every last chance!

Originally posted by C'jais
What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on?

Without the engine, my car is just a bunch of spare parts.... same with my body without my head. It wouldn't be me (unless it's true what they say about the little head).

Homuncul
06-17-2003, 07:55 AM
I liked the idea first but then i thought hybernating is more humanous. As I understood that monkey could respond to some sense stimulation but it could not move at all, imagine you're paralised and conscious. It could drive anybody mad.

And also imagine how difficlt will it be to get a donor body. The holy church will again protest and many countries would ban it. Hybernation is working without these problems although I know there're very difficult aspects of it (but it's all technical) and it's perhaps decades till it's actually done, I still think it to be the neede approach.

I'll definitly look for some arguments about White, and of course I'd like to know more in details of the operation itself

ET Warrior
06-17-2003, 10:26 PM
An interesting thought occured to me about the money making aspects that people could try to take advantage of were this perfected.....

It's a bit off the wall and probably never would happen....but.......what if people had their head transplanted onto a body that was not very old, but not in the greatest of shape, and then worked it out until it was in GREAT shape...and then if they had another viable transplant in line.....SOLD their well-shaped body for a hefty profit....you know there area lot of rich old people who would pay to have a body like that......

Kind of creepy...........Unlikely.........but weird.........

Jubatus
06-17-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
...what if people had their head transplanted onto a body that was not very old, but not in the greatest of shape, and then worked it out until it was in GREAT shape...and then if they had another viable transplant in line.....SOLD their well-shaped body for a hefty profit....you know there area lot of rich old people who would pay to have a body like that......

Kind of creepy...........Unlikely.........but weird.........

Whereever there's a profit to be made be sure humans will find it and exploit it, especially those desperate enough, so I don't find that scenario unlikely at all.

Psydan
06-18-2003, 02:58 AM
Anyone know why the monkeys only lasted 9 hrs. ? Could be their heads weren't meant to be "transplanted".

SkinWalker
06-18-2003, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
Anyone know why the monkeys only lasted 9 hrs. ? Could be their heads weren't meant to be "transplanted".

That would imply a "plan," which may be a possibility. However, the probable explanation is that they haven't perfected the match up of neural pathways, circulatory connections, anti-rejection methods, etc.

C'jais
06-18-2003, 09:40 AM
Yep, the reason the monkey didn't last very long was because the idea and implementation is still in it's infant stage:

The monkeys actually lived up to nine hours and exhibited some ability to see, hear, feel and taste. White recalls that “we really weren’t planning on seeing them alive for much longer because there was so much more to learn about how such a transplant would work, the body being so complex.”

Jubatus
06-18-2003, 11:54 AM
Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting. It's incorrect to call it a head transplant. You have to regard it from the 'I''s point of view, which makes it a body transplant. It's the same mistake we see in the phrase "He got his head cut off." No, he got his body cut off, or at the least he got his head seperated from his body; the 'he' is in his head. When one says that he got his head cut off it implies that his head was just an extremity from the 'he', and even further it might imply he could live without his head! Now, I know you all are aware of this, but one shouldn't hang on to clichés of expression when they're basically wrong.

ET Warrior
06-18-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Jubatus
Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting. It's incorrect to call it a head transplant. You have to regard it from the 'I''s point of view, which makes it a body transplant. It's the same mistake we see in the phrase "He got his head cut off." No, he got his body cut off, or at the least he got his head seperated from his body; the 'he' is in his head. When one says that he got his head cut off it implies that his head was just an extremity from the 'he', and even further it might imply he could live without his head! Now, I know you all are aware of this, but one shouldn't hang on to clichés of expression when they're basically wrong.

Doesn't seem like that big of a deal..... I mean, the meaning is the same...your head is getting transplanted onto a new body...thus it IS a head transplant...sort of......

And saying his head got cut off......his head DID get cut off...it's his head, and it got cut off of his body...thus...his head got cut off....

Jubatus
06-18-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Doesn't seem like that big of a deal..... I mean, the meaning is the same...your head is getting transplanted onto a new body...thus it IS a head transplant...sort of......

And saying his head got cut off......his head DID get cut off...it's his head, and it got cut off of his body...thus...his head got cut off....

Not saying it didn't, just pointing out that the emphasis ought to be on the 'I', which resides in the head, thus making the body being removed from the head more relevant than the head being removed from the body as an accounting of loss. The 'I' loses the body, not the head.

EDIT: Writing too fast makes you skip words at time :rolleyes:

Psydan
06-20-2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Jubatus
Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting. It's incorrect to call it a head transplant. You have to regard it from the 'I''s point of view, which makes it a body transplant. It's the same mistake we see in the phrase "He got his head cut off." No, he got his body cut off, or at the least he got his head seperated from his body; the 'he' is in his head. When one says that he got his head cut off it implies that his head was just an extremity from the 'he', and even further it might imply he could live without his head! Now, I know you all are aware of this, but one shouldn't hang on to clichés of expression when they're basically wrong.
Only problem is that you can't prove what the "I" or the "He" is, it could be his body, and the brain is just a tool to allow the body to make rational decisions, how can you say that a body part (the head) is the only part of the body that matters, that is the person? Couldn't the body be the "he" and the head just be an extremity that allows for thoughts to be formed and stored, and for commands to be given?

SkinWalker
06-20-2003, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
Only problem is that you can't prove what the "I" or the "He" is, it could be his body, and the brain is just a tool to allow the body to make rational decisions,

The body is incapable of "making decisions." This is a cognitive process that requires the neural activity of the brain.

Originally posted by Psydan
Couldn't the body be the "he" and the head just be an extremity that allows for thoughts to be formed and stored, and for commands to be given?

And this is the center of what one comes to know of as self. Self is comprised of the memories and thought patterns stored in the brain. There is no mechanism to do so in other extremities of the body. In fact, there is considerable evidence that would suggest that the idea of self ceases to exist when the brain ceases to function. Other body parts have been injured, even removed without losing sentient self. However, there are a tremendous amount of documented cases where head injuries have resulted in apparent loss of self-awareness, coma, amnesia, and drastic changes in personality. Thus, the evidence points to the "head" as the location of "self."

FunClown
06-20-2003, 09:43 AM
The body is incapable of "making decisions." This is a cognitive process that requires the neural activity of the brain.

One must also realize that our body does have nerves which send messages to the brain. I would say it would be a bit of a two way process.

However, the idea of self, would be definitely in the brain. If we lived with no brain, our bodies would probably be just reacting to various stimuli. Not all living things have brains eg Jellyfish.

In doing a head transplant, I would say, never doubt the ability to adapt. It would take time. For instance, universities have done studies where people where these things with mirrors that allow them to see only at certain angles (like fish or birds or something). It gives headaches at first, however, after a few weeks they are used to it.

C'jais
06-20-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Jubatus
Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting.

I agree to an extent - it should be called a body transplant, since that's what it is, for the person.

OTOH, saying a person got his "body cut off" is a meaningless change - as the person is dead, it's really just chopping off extremeties.

C'jais
06-20-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by FunClown
One must also realize that our body does have nerves which send messages to the brain. I would say it would be a bit of a two way process.

Yup, but they do not do so consciously.

They're sensors - not decision makers.

Jubatus
06-20-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
OTOH, saying a person got his "body cut off" is a meaningless change - as the person is dead, it's really just chopping off extremeties.

It's the same difference, yes. I'm simply pointing out the matter of perception.

Cosmos Jack
06-21-2003, 12:29 PM
Well.......

He said he was motivated by the handicapped? In order to do a head transplant that would work you would have to reconnect the spinal cord lol. So why bother just do that in the handicapped person...... :confused:

Pointless unless your body was totally crushed and some how they kept your head alive tell someone died of brain cancer. They would also have to matched your blood type......:rolleyes:

Though when they figure out how to put your brain in a machine I will be interested lol.... :D

shukrallah
06-24-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by C'jais

What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on?

thats sort of freaky... it like you, mixed with someone else...


I suppose that this head transplant business is another one of those sciences (or branch of a tree of science) that will meet with scorn and loathing for the first few generations for then to become a common everyday thing. Besides, it's only an extension of medical procedures that are common today, organ transplants.

its a little different than an organ transplants, this a whole head, and a new body... but when you get your head cut off, your still alive, 4 a little while right.. maybe a minute.. or a few seconds...so if you were going to remove someones head, and place it on another body, wouldnt it become retarded, or the person have brain damage?

Jubatus
06-24-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
its a little different than an organ transplants, this a whole head, and a new body... but when you get your head cut off, your still alive, 4 a little while right.. maybe a minute.. or a few seconds...so if you were going to remove someones head, and place it on another body, wouldnt it become retarded, or the person have brain damage?

Principally it is the same, but of course it will take some development in brain preservation, possibly by sofisticated medical machinery, to perfect the procedure. The brain needs to be kept alive, fed oxygen, during the course of the procedure. Besides, I think a brain can be clinically dead for up to 3-4 minutes before it takes any irreversible damage.

shukrallah
06-24-2003, 04:11 PM
oh ok.

Well, ive been thinking, and on the religious side, if your just going to have a head transplant so you get a better body (like the rich guy someone said ealrier) then i think its wrong, cause God gave what he gave you. If your injured and thats the only thing that can save you, then... i dont know, i mean, i know christians who have had heart transplants things like that... but who knows?

EDIT: even if you dont believe in the bible and God, you can still see why thats wrong, well, i guess it depends on how you look at it.

So there going to take a dead body... from someone who just died... and use that... but the body would be dead, it couldnt operate, the heart and lungs would die... things like that. Of coarse finding a body to fit the head would be almost impossible.

Jubatus
06-24-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Well, ive been thinking, and on the religious side, if your just going to have a head transplant so you get a better body (like the rich guy someone said ealrier) then i think its wrong, cause God gave what he gave you....

Taking that point of thought, and following the line it dictates, it would then be wrong to use medication to prolong your life through better health, it would be wrong to build machines to ease your work, it would in essence be wrong to take any action since God will provide. Or can you suggest something in between? Where does the line go between right and wrong? You say we should leave it to God to decide how and how long we live, so am I to take it that any effort to ease pain, cure disease and safe lives is wrong?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
So there going to take a dead body... from someone who just died... and use that... but the body would be dead, it couldnt operate, the heart and lungs would die... things like that. Of coarse finding a body to fit the head would be almost impossible.

The heart and the liver are easily preserved over a period of time and these are two of the most vital body parts, so why couldn't a body be preserved for long enough to have a head attached to it? And what exactly makes it almost impossible to find a fitting body? I suppose blood types should match like with heart transplants, but other than that....

The body is simply a tool of flesh. Religion and spirituality regard it as more than that, and maybe they're right, but medical science is doing one hell of a job nonetheless.

EDIT: Typos are a heavy contender for the place of Universal Unlimited Resource :rolleyes:

shukrallah
06-24-2003, 11:32 PM
hmm, you do bring up a good point there...

but on the other hand, (you know how God will, allow certain things to happen, to teach that person a lesson) for inmstance a heart transplant: could be to tell that person you almost lossed your life, now live it better (maybe, im not sayiong thats what happens...)


Religion and spirituality regard it as more than that, and maybe they're right,

the bible doesnt.... its in there somewhere... about it only being flesh and nothing more, but it talks about the spirit being more than the body.

Taking that point of thought, and following the line it dictates, it would then be wrong to use medication to prolong your life through better health,

i c your point, but i was talking about, im rich, and i have a pretty good body, but then theres some guy who works out a lot, and i 'buy' his body, just 4 the look. Then i figure that as being wrong.

what about the family of the donor's body, i doubt anyone would appreciate the loved ones body being sewn on to someone elses head... its just not the same as donating a heart... theres a still a body. But then theres just a head, imagine going to a cemetary and knowing, theres just a head in the casket... or something. I think there will be more problems with that than religous people.

BTW i heard in england, there were hundreds of heads taken without permission, maybe they were testing this... i know they said they were studying them....

-lukeskywalker1

Jubatus
06-25-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
but on the other hand, (you know how God will, allow certain things to happen, to teach that person a lesson) for inmstance a heart transplant: could be to tell that person you almost lossed your life, now live it better (maybe, im not sayiong thats what happens...)

Yes, and who are we to decide whether in one situation God means it as a lesson or in another he is saying it's wrong? Can you claim to speak on God's behalf in every matter?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
the bible doesnt.... its in there somewhere... about it only being flesh and nothing more, but it talks about the spirit being more than the body.

Exactly, the spirit, if there is such a thing, is more than the body, so don't go holding this flesh in such high esteem. Are you arguing against me or yourself here?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
i c your point, but i was talking about, im rich, and i have a pretty good body, but then theres some guy who works out a lot, and i 'buy' his body, just 4 the look. Then i figure that as being wrong.

what about the family of the donor's body, i doubt anyone would appreciate the loved ones body being sewn on to someone elses head... its just not the same as donating a heart... theres a still a body. But then theres just a head, imagine going to a cemetary and knowing, theres just a head in the casket... or something. I think there will be more problems with that than religous people.


Who said anything about the rich guy being able to just buy another body against anyone's will? The final decision of whether to donate a body should naturally be the donor's, or his next of kin if he's already dead, by law. But of course, I'm not delusional; there will be a black market for this too. And whether you're walking around with somebody else's body or just the heart is by principle the same, it's just a matter of perception. Hell, even I will find it repulsing at start if I saw it, but I'd recognize it for what it is.

And as for burying only the head of a loved one...There are countless families who have buried nothing of their loved ones, because their bodies were never found.

shukrallah
06-25-2003, 02:23 PM
Yes, and who are we to decide whether in one situation God means it as a lesson or in another he is saying it's wrong? Can you claim to speak on God's behalf in every matter?

yes thats true, i cant, i can only say what i know to be true, which on this situation i dont know...

Exactly, the spirit, if there is such a thing, is more than the body, so don't go holding this flesh in such high esteem. Are you arguing against me or yourself here?

lol
hmmm, when you say, hold the flesh in such high esteem, you mean like with the new bodies... well, i mean even if you dotn believe in God, and you believe evolution, then you got what you got through evolution, and you got what you got 4 a reason... whatever that may be...

I guess it is all about perception, and what each person thinks I right and wrong... like cloning....... it all depends on the person.

-lukeskywalker1

Jubatus
06-25-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
lol
hmmm, when you say, hold the flesh in such high esteem, you mean like with the new bodies... well, i mean even if you dotn believe in God, and you believe evolution, then you got what you got through evolution, and you got what you got 4 a reason... whatever that may be...

Already said what the body is, but can repeat it again if you like; it's a tool for the preservation of the 'I' and for the reproduction of new ones. Simply, it's about survival.

Without the 'I' the body is worthless, well, apart of being able to serve as nourishment/fertilizer.

Yes, evolution 'gave' me the body as a tool for survival and reproduction (which is extended survival), but it apparently also gave man the intellect to repair and even replace parts of it and, as things are developing, all of it. If you'd care to observe nature you'd notice that there are no limits for what Life will do to preserve itself; killing, scavenging, deceit and conquest are everyday events in nature. Man is sophisticated enough to imagine himself 'better' than this, but basically, on a primal level, he is exactly the same.

legameboy
06-30-2003, 01:21 AM
Why don't they just leave our body alone and let us die in peace.

shukrallah
06-30-2003, 01:35 AM
why die in peace when you can live in pain for another 9 hours?

just kidding :D

really, its just like Jubatus said, just to survive, hey, would you rather die, or live forever? hes right, even in nature all everything is about is survival, seems pointless huh? im here to live as long as i can... and try to live longer, but in the end, we die, its unavoidable... the scientists are only delaying the inevitable by trying, unless they could get people to live forever, which isnt possible... i doubt that will ever be possible...

legameboy
06-30-2003, 01:41 AM
It's just, cloning, transplants, sperm banks and all, I believe nature should take its path, we don't need science to pave natures trail. I will die, when I will die and that's that.

Jubatus
06-30-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by legameboy
It's just, cloning, transplants, sperm banks and all, I believe nature should take its path, we don't need science to pave natures trail. I will die, when I will die and that's that.

Again is man's delusionally high esteem of himself apparent. We are nature too. Nature as a concept is not a static thing, it is an everevolving thing and new concepts, such as maninvented/discovered medical science, must be included as they come about, for there is nothing man has made that did not originate from basic nature; only the processes involved from basics to product become more and more numerous, hence the road they have travelled become more and more obscured, yet it is an absolute road nonetheless. We are not above nature.

Homuncul
07-01-2003, 05:29 AM
And furthermore where would we be without science. Human addiction to knowledge is not accident. It all comes from the same nature. In stone age the more experienced ones were leaders of the tribe, giving wise decisions on the survival of their people. This was part of natural selection, which led us to what we're, self aware beings with knowledge and knowledge to come.
And the goal of science was never to prolong life, it was about discribing the place we live in. Scientists just look for all possibilities. If for example we had a way to prolong life of Albert Einstein, then who knows maybe now we had a quantum gravity, or even some theory of everything upcoming.

So where is the reason why we should stop doing what we do and "let the nature take it's course". Or do people always judge science for only bad things it produces. But science iself don't do it (science never created atomic bomb, Einstein did, science was only dealing with how half life, or chain reaction went and how it fits into explanation of reality). It is solely done by men that people die of radiation, some stinking polution and influenza. A how again if not without science will we solve these problems. Nature is not against knowledge (it accumulates one) and it's surely not against science. I think it's course is always only with us