[ExI] Nice Article on Brain Preservation

[Kelly Anderson]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:07 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I would still prefer to have my brain stored in a dedicated institution
>> > trying to protect it than to trust the overall environment out there.
>
> I strongly agree, even a plastic infused brain is not invulnerable and a
> friendly institution might be able to help with problem #3.

I also think that storing my plastinated brain with an institution
like Alcor is better for my chances of reanimation than allowing my
children to play kick ball with it. If there isn't enough money in
plastination to support a company or institution, then it might be a
harder sell.

How much would Alcor charge to store my plastinated brain?

>> > Max's point about revival options is important: we do not just want to
>> > minimize damage during preservation, we also want to make the resulting
>> > product amenable to as many possible future revival technologies as
>> > possible.
>
> I don't understand the distinction. Whichever method produces the least
> amount of damage preserves the most information, and the more information
> transmitted safely into the future the more options there would be for
> anyone who thinks we're worth the trouble of reviving.

The only difference in any approach would be how long it would take to
develop the necessary technology to revive someone if a sufficient
amount of information were stored. I guess also how expensive it would
be. If all the information is stored, then it's just a matter of time
before the technology exists to do the procedure.

Another question comes up in all this... If I have my brain preserved,
how do I know if I'm going to be the first to be revived, or the last?
I would not want to be the first, because I would assume the
technology would not be perfected the first time through. I would not
necessarily want to be last... but I'd rather be last than first.

-Kelly