www.lesswrong.com/posts/E9xfgJHvs6M55kABD/less-dead

This sentence overstates the state of the science.

The Brain Preservation Foundation — the organization that awarded the ASC prize cited elsewhere in the post — explicitly says that validation for human-use memory preservation has not yet occurred. Its position statement says that many neuroscientists think preserving the connectome alone may not be sufficient, that we still do not fully understand how many kinds of memory are stored, and that discussion and consensus about ASC's adequacy for preserving useful human memories has not happened. In its words: "Until a minority professional consensus emerges around this question, validation of preservation's value for human use has not occurred."

The BPF's accreditation page is similar: it says current consensus is that long-term information is primarily stored in synaptic patterns, but also notes that additional factors beyond traceability — such as receptor types, intrinsic neuronal plasticity, and molecular states — may also prove important for complete information retention.

Even Nectome's own linked writeup frames this as a hypothesis, not a settled result: its page is titled "The Long-Term Memory Preservation Hypothesis" and says glutaraldehyde fixation "may be able to preserve" memory and "may preserve memory."

So the evidence may support a plausible hypothesis, but it is not accurate to say that current neuroscience says long-term memories are preserved by this protocol.