Skip to main content

Meet the man on a controversial mission to preserve and digitize your brain

brain with computer text scrolling artificial intelligence
Chris DeGraw/Digital Trends, Getty Images

Many futurists have speculated that we may one day be able to scan the human brain and “upload” it to a computer. Some believe this could allow humans to live on after death in digital form, or preserve a copy of yourself that will stick around long after you’re gone. Of course, we’re nowhere near being able to achieve such a feat right now — but what if your brain could be preserved until technology makes brain digitization possible?

Recommended Videos

That’s exactly what scientist Robert McIntyre is hoping to do. In 2015, he launched a startup called Nectome, aimed at developing brain-preservation technology. Today, that startup has faded from the limelight somewhat, but McIntyre’s dream — preserving human brains so that they might be digitized in the future — is still very much alive. I sat down with him to get an update on the current state of his brain-preservation ambitions.

The conversation did not go as anticipated.

A philosophical turn

Almost immediately, the interview took a philosophical turn. He challenged my opinion that a digital copy of a brain isn’t the same as someone surviving death via uploading.

“The question is, is the way you’re choosing to value yourself or the way you’re choosing to value others. Is that serving you well? Is it useful? Or is it hurting you? Is it not useful?” he asked. “Why do you value one way of arriving at a brain structure and not value another way of arriving at a brain structure?”

“Whenever society develops a mechanism to preserve information and transmit it to the next generation with more fidelity, it’s led to radical shifts in what society is.”

McIntrye argues that even if we never reach a point where consciousness can somehow be transferred onto a computer, a digital copy of your brain is inherently a continuation of your life in a certain way. He says that every choice you’ve ever made influences how your brain became the way it is today, so copying that brain is a continuation of that journey after death.

“If you have a copy of a person, but you’re saying it’s not really continuous with them or real in that way, there’s a certain sense in which it isn’t. Certainly,” McIntyre says. “A copy that’s just been [created] clearly didn’t literally live through the events of that person’s life, because obviously it didn’t. You just assembled it right now. On the other hand, there’s a sense in which it’s absolutely continuous with the person. If that person had different experiences and different memories, then the configuration of the brain of the copy would be different.”

Cognitive Dissonance
SubstanceP/Getty Images

McIntyre frequently compares copying the brain to making a copy of a famous painting. If you were able to make a perfect copy of a famous painting, he asks, why is it less valuable than the famous painting? The reason, of course, is that we tend to value authenticity and its connection to the past —continuity. But McIntyre contends that we choose to value these things, and argues that authenticity is a “collective fiction” that may not be serving us.

If a robot painted a new version of a classic painting using the exact same brush strokes the original painter made, McIntyre says, then it’s essentially like the artist is controlling the robot from beyond the grave. If he or she had made one different motion, then the robot would have to make the same motion.

During the interview, I sometimes got the feeling I was talking to Doctor Manhattan from the Watchmen comics. He clearly doesn’t want to devalue people caring about authenticity and their connections with the past, but he also doesn’t seem to think they’re as important as we make them out to be. He seems to think we could simply do away with those sentimental things and benefit from doing so.

The tricky business of brain preservation

Perhaps partially because of the extremely logical way McIntyre tends to approach things, Nectome was the subject of many scandalous headlines a couple of years ago. The company had come out of the startup accelerator Y Combinator, won a prize from the Brain Preservation Foundation, received support from people at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and looked to have a promising future. But after an article from MIT Technology Review in which McIntrye described his brain-preservation process as “100-percent fatal,” and the word “euthanasia” started getting thrown around, folks at MIT and beyond started distancing themselves from the company.

Nectome created a chemical solution that can be injected into the body and essentially turn it into glass so the brain can be scanned and uploaded whenever technology is capable of doing such a thing. This would have to be done while someone is still alive, so the idea was that terminally ill patients could choose to participate in this project at some point. Unsurprisingly, this was seen as a very controversial idea by some. McIntyre largely stepped back from the public view after this controversy, but he later did an interview with STAT to clear things up in 2019.

Randal Koene, a neuroscientist and neuroengineer who co-founded Carboncopies, tells Digital Trends that the people at Nectome didn’t at first have experience in communicating their plans and their methods, which caused them some problems.

brain
Image used with permission by copyright holder

“It’s important to focus on communicating scientific advances without conflating that with speculative hypotheses about future medical protocols, especially if those would be based on assumptions about social and regulatory changes that have not yet received attention from experts or been subjected to ethical guidelines,” Koene says. “As for Nectome and its work, I actually have a very positive opinion of that. Robert McIntyre and his colleagues have been meticulous in their studies (which have been through peer review and published). The results, as evaluated by the Brain Preservation Foundation and others, are of exceptionally high quality.”

McIntyre says he understands why people get freaked out when these kinds of topics are discussed, because death is a scary thing. He’s still doing the work he was doing before this controversy, and he truly believes his work could change society forever. As he sees it, preserving and then uploading brains could change how we learn about history, which could change how much we learn from it.

“It will create a whole new history and change society, I think, as profoundly as writing did.”

“The fact of the matter is that currently when you die, all of the information that’s stored in your brain is completely destroyed. That’s how it’s been every generation,” McIntyre says. “It’s also true that whenever society develops a mechanism to preserve information and transmit it to the next generation with more fidelity, it’s led to radical shifts in what society is. In fact, I would say that that is the defining thing that shifts between historical eras. It’s not about the Stone Age or the Iron Age or anything. It’s about information transmission.”

Just as the ability to write, the invention of the printing press, and the other ways we’ve advanced when it comes to transmitting information have changed society, McIntyre believes brain uploading will have profound impacts on humanity. He says we’re a long way from being able to do it, so we should start preserving people’s brains as soon as we can.

“It will create a whole new history and change society, I think, as profoundly as writing did,” McIntyre says. “We’ll then be living in the era of living memory. Humanity won’t really forget things like it does right now.”

Thor Benson
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Thor Benson is an independent journalist who has contributed to Digital Trends, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NBC News and…
The Ioniq 5 is once again eligible for the $7,500 tax credit
2025 Hyundai Ioniq 5

After a brief and confusing absence, the Hyundai Ioniq 5 is once again eligible for the full $7,500 federal tax credit — and this time, it's sticking around (at least for now). So, what happened? Let’s unpack the ride.

The Ioniq 5, a sleek and tech-savvy electric crossover, initially made headlines not just for its design, but for being built at Hyundai’s brand-new Metaplant in Georgia. That domestic assembly qualified it for the EV tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which requires vehicles to be made in North America with batteries sourced from trade-friendly countries. But early in 2025, the Ioniq 5 vanished from the list. Why? Likely due to its battery packs, which were then still being sourced from SK On’s Hungarian facility.

Read more
Sebastian Stan lays out Bucky’s future after Thunderbolts
Sebastian Stan in Thunderbolts.

There are some spoilers ahead for the ending of Marvel's Thunderbolts. Stop reading now if you don't want to be spoiled.

Earlier this year, Captain America: Brave New World briefly introduced a new direction for James "Bucky" Barnes, a character Sebastian Stan has been playing since 2011 in Captain America: The First Avenger. In Brave New World, the former Winter Soldier apparently retired from being a reformed hero and went into politics by running for Congress. Thunderbolts reveals that Bucky won his election to the House of Representatives. But his stay in Congress was short.

Read more
Jeep Compass EV breaks cover—but will it come to the U.S.?
jeep compass ev us newjeepcompassfirsteditionhawaii  4

Jeep just pulled the wraps off the all-new Compass EV, and while it’s an exciting leap into the electric future, there's a catch—it might not make it to the U.S. anytime soon.
This is a brand new electric version of the Jeep Compass, and being built on Stellantis' STLA platform—the same architecture underpinning models like the Peugeot E-3008 and E-5008—it looks much slicker and packs a lot more inside than previous versions of the Compass.
Let’s start with what’s cool: the new Compass EV is packing up to 404 miles of range on a single charge, a 74 kWh battery, and fast-charging that gets you from 20% to 80% in about 30 minutes. Not bad for a compact SUV with Jeep's badge on the nose.
There are two versions: a front-wheel-drive model with 213 horsepower and a beefier all-wheel-drive version with 375 horsepower. That AWD setup isn’t just for looks—it can handle 20% inclines even without front traction, and comes with extra ground clearance and better off-road angles. In short, it’s still a Jeep.
The design's been refreshed too, and inside you’ll find the kind of tech and comfort you’d expect in a modern EV—sleek, smart, and ready for both city streets and dirt trails.
But here’s the thing: even though production starts soon in Italy, Jeep hasn’t said whether the Compass EV is coming to America. And the signs aren’t promising.
Plans to build it in Canada were recently put on hold, with production now delayed until at least early 2026. Some of that might have to do with possible U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican vehicles—adding a layer of uncertainty to the whole rollout.
According to Kelley Blue Book, a Stellantis spokesperson confirmed that the company has “temporarily paused work on the next-generation Jeep Compass, including activities at” the Canadian plant that was originally meant to build the model. They added that Stellantis is “reassessing its product strategy in North America” to better match customer needs and demand for different powertrain options.
So while Europe and other markets are gearing up to get the Compass EV soon, American drivers might be left waiting—or miss out entirely.
That’s a shame, because on paper, this electric Jeep hits a lot of sweet spots. Let’s just hope it finds a way over here.

Read more