>I believe that both of these things are equally possible - that is, not very possible at all. I believe it's incorrect to claim that the probability that a cr

>I believe that both of these things are equally possible - that is, not very possible at all. I believe it's incorrect to claim that the probability that a cryopreserved brain has some information about the brain structure is equal the the probability that a fully decomposed brain has after decades of decomposing (which is the scenario I have in mind). I just don't understand how someone could make such a proposition. If we dig up a decomposed brain, it's just pretty much completely destroyed (e.g. fully decomposed) if we look at it with a microscope. I'm assuming that we're not talking about rare niche cases of fossilization etc. To have an idea of how much information vitrification preserves, you should know that a kidney can be frozen and thawed, and replanted to a live animal. We can also look at neural tissue after vitrification, like here: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.htm... After you've looked at this probably new evidence presented to you, do you still seriously claim that it's exactly equally as possible to retrive information from a cryopreserved brain as it is from a decomposed brain? I don't believe you actually think that. I think that you've made the mistake to take two extremely unequal yet different and small probabilities to mean exactly the same. If you assume that the probability that cryopreservation is 0.1%, then you should think that the probability to retrieve information from a decomposed brain to be lower than 0.001%. They're both really small, but they're not unequal. Do you think that the probability is exactly the same? I rate such beliefs as not only wrong, but ignorant of empirical evidence.