the latter approach is thought to be superior at preserving the brain’s “connectome,” which first author and neuroscientist ariel zeleznikow-johnston of monash university in melbourne has described as “all the individual (neural) connections that each of us have in our brains that make us unique.”
however distant, or outlandish, the prospect might seem now, “as long as you’ve preserved someone’s body and their brain in good quality (revival) remains a possibility, as long as you have their connectome,” zelesnikow-johnston said before a
royal institution talk on abolishing death.
however, doctors lack “consensus” on whole body or brain preservation, “creating challenges for physicians whose patients inquire about preservation as an end-of-life option,” zeleznikow-johnston and colleagues wrote in plos one, including after medically assisted deaths.
for their study, survey participants were first asked, “how plausible do you find the idea that preservation could potentially allow for some form of revival in the future?” all in, 27.9 per cent answered “somewhat” or “very” plausible, while 47 per cent responded “somewhat” or “very” implausible.
next they were asked to imagine a scenario where a patient is preserved within minutes of his or her heart stopping, and where imaging and brain biopsies show “intact brain structures down to the synaptic level.”
how likely would it be, the doctors were asked, that a “significant amount of the neurally-encoded information required for long-term memory and personality is still preserved in their brain, such that it may be technologically possible to revive this patient, even in the distant future?”
overall, they said there was a 25.5 per cent chance.
neurosurgeons rated the possibility that psychological information would remain after revival at 72 per cent, the highest of the group. most of the other specialities were more skeptical.