Incidentally, I suspect that this was downvoted for starting an argument over definitions. (The downvotes weren't mine, FYI.)

My problem with "broken" in this context is that it fails to distinguish between a brain that fails to function as intended in some important capacity -- for example, one that is incapable of identifying its person's wife -- and one that fails to function as intended in any capacity at all.

I guess I can go with "inanimate," if you want (since you say "ceases to be animate"). It seems weird to fail to distinguish between a corpse and a statue, but not unbearably weird.

I haven't claimed that the person dies; I've claimed the brain does.

Sure, perhaps future technology will include the ability to reconstruct the person from the dead cells of the person's brain, in which case the person survives... no argument. And in that case cryonics is, as you say, a form of survival.

But the cells remain dead, as does the organ they comprise. And the comment I was responding to was talking about ways to allow a brain to survive without the body's blood flow, not about people.

And, sure, it's possible that future technology will include the ability to reconstruct a living brain from the brain's dead cells. Actually, I suspect that will be much easier than reconstructing the person. And it's possible that it will include the ability to repair the cells themselves and restore them to their former state.

Personally, I would say it's still a dead brain, much as my ability to reforge a broken sword doesn't prevent the sword from breaking. But that's a purely semantic question... the reality is the same whether we call the brain "dead" or not.

So, OK, what term would you prefer I use? (Resting? Stunned? Pining for the fjords? Passed on? This brain is no more! It has ceased to be! It is an ex-brain!)

Or do you object to using any terminology to differentiate a post-cryonics brain from a pre-the-event-that-ordinarily-entails-a-funeral brain?

What is does is allow a brain to survive without its own body's blood flow, and there are other, artificial ways to do so (or cryonics, as well).

Cryonics doesn't allow a brain to survive without its own body's blood flow.

Cryonics doesn't allow a brain to survive, period.

Cryonics involves killing a brain (or preparing a dead brain) in such a way as to maximize the chances that some future technology can extract its instantiated mind.

A worthy goal, but a different one.

Point taken, though it seems like that's a common issue for the whole subject. It's been hard for me to find (in a short time) any studies about polyphasic sleep. The primary source of any information seems to be anecdotes. It seems that the entire concept arose from someone who appears to have invented this schedule here. "Uberman" was his naming convention since he was reading Nietzsche at the time.

I did find it quite interesting to read that post as well as this one which reports that he's been on the "Everyman schedule" for 3 years as of 2009 and this one where he compares Everyman to Uberman.

While I'm still skeptical, such positive reviews from someone who's tried it does entice me...

Edit: He... is a she!

I can't wait for the post-cryo meetups

Well, I suppose you don't have to... or at least, you don't have to experience waiting... but I rather wish you would.

For me this is in the "not surprising, but important to notice" category. Every kind of activism is a kind of marketing. The branding of important topics like cryonics, rationality, transhumanism, etc. tends to suffer from neglect, or plays out in weird ways that will never go mainstream. This may be due to the way we tend to think about them or the kind of people attracted to them.

This is an amazing story. Congratulations on your courage and the chance you have with your mother which many others do not. Even if it is small it is a source of hope.

This is the first case I've heard of where brain only cryonics was combined with a traditional funeral. KrioRus is the only current cryonics company that does brain only right now, so it is possible that more such cases may originate there in the future.

If this does become public in Russia, we may be presented with a useful data point about how controversial brain-only cryonics is. My theory is that it is less controversial and easier to rationalize for people who have failed to internalize the fact that the brain is a human being. If Ted Williams had been brain only, I wonder how that controversy would have played out differently.

On the topic of scholarship, I'd like to mention that if one takes the notion of surviving cryopreservation seriously, it's probably a good idea to read up on cryobiology. Have at least a basic understanding of what's going to happen to your cells when your time comes. There is a rich and complex field behind it which very few individuals have much grasp on.

If the bug bites you to do so, you may even be able to go into the field and make some breakthroughs. Huge advances have been made in recent decades by very small numbers of cryonics-motivated scientists, suggesting that there is probably a lot of low-hanging fruit remaining. Even if there's not, it seems like relatively small amounts of incremental progress in this field could have a large total utility if cryonics somehow catches on and becomes widespread in the near future.

Note that Aschwin de Wolf has published a good deal of high quality technical information on his blog Depressed Metabolism, which is a good starting point. Leading cryobiologist Brian Wowk has also been answering all kinds of questions over on the Immortality Institute Cryonics Forum. Many of his publications are to be found here.

I didn't actually realize cryonics was such a hot topic on this site until after I had posted, so I became a little worried that I'd get beaten with the newbie stick for it.

I consider myself a transhumanist (in the sense that I find genetic alteration, computer augmentation, life extension, etc to be desirable goals, not in the sense that I drank the Kurzweil Kool-Aid and think that all this is inevitable or even probable in my lifetime), but I had never really considered cryonics as a major transhumanist approach. I'm certainly not opposed to cryonics on any kind of ethical grounds (my personal pragmatic concerns are a matter for another thread entirely), but since this is a question of the policy rather than the science side of cryonics, I have to go with my general observation that legislatures almost inevitably show up a day late and a dollar short. I think that the first wave of legislation on the topic will come at least one legislative session after the irrational masses start to get worked up into a religious frenzy over cryonics. So this is, to me, an issue better suited for decade rather than year predictions. I am however, compelled to agree with you that the likelihood of pro-cryonics legislation appears to be significantly less than the likelihood of anti-cryonics legislation. Hell, even if I weren't a transhumanist, the civil libertarian in me would be appalled by Michigan's facepalmingly bureaucratic handling of the situation. "Cryonics Institute is clearly operating as both a funeral establishment and cemetery without any state oversight." Do we really need a government permission slip to bury/freeze our dead?

Also, why am I completely unsurprised by the fact that Arizona was the state to try and ban cryonics?