#digital immortality

digital immortality | virtual e-morality

I recently read about the concept of digital immortality, in a social science, probably more specifically communication, thesis. It is a fascinating concept, both because it is highly interesting and deeply of our time, and also, at the same time and in the same expansive manner, deeply troubling for a plethora of reasons.

Digital immortality, storing our minds, our memories, the aspects of our personalities in a digital format to, so to speak, live on after our deaths, the deaths of our physical self, brings up questions about identity, consciousness and what it means to be humans. As a student of philosophy, the ethical implications are massive. Who controls these digital selves? How do we protect the privacy and the dignity of these entities, if and when they might exist, if it even is the correct terminology. What happens to our relationships with the dead and the living? All those questions are unsettling. I've thus found myself thinking that it was deeply related with transhumanism and transhumanists' want to enhance human beings, to...somehow, defy death itself. Transhumanists strive to transcend human limitations, by aiming to preserve consciousness and personality digitally, they envision a future where mortality is less definitive and rather is more of a state to be navigated and perhaps even overcome. However, does the/a digital version of ourselves truly represent our identity?

The metaphor or "defying" death captures another problem altogether : it's not just about exetnding life, but rather more about transforming our very nature.

Indeed, if human-beings were one day, in the future, digitally immortal, it would change not only the human-nature ; if there is such a thing as human nature, thinkers have been discussing this idea for thousands of years and there are still not one but many definitions of the concept of human nature ; but it would also potentially change the nature of Artificial Inetlligence. Which would be an entirely new concern. If, human-beings achieve true digital immortality, it could redefine what is means to be human and AI. The blending of human consciousness with AI could lead to a new kind of entity, neither fully human nor fully AI. Which poses new ethical and metaphysical challenges. As a student of ethics, I consider that human-beings cannot serve as tools, which would be deeply unethical, human-beings cannot be means to others' ends, which is very kantien, but I like his deontology. While AIs are by their very nature tools and can be used to further one's ends. Kant's categorical imperative champions the inherent dignity and worth of human-beings, emphasising that they should never be treated merely as means to an end. AIs, on the other hand, are specifically designed to serve as tools to facilitate human activities, according to some definition. This disctinction is fundamental between beings with intrisnict value and those created for a specific utility. All of which, when considering digital immortality, is a fine line to thread. Whith digital immortality, human-beings who become thus immortal would then be...what? They were, when living, moral agents, according to Kant's terms ; which I would like to use in my research ; and then, in their "false death", since they become immortal digitally, they would be AI-like or AI-powered, and thus somewhat tool-like? I see here that if a digitally immortal human-being, once a moral agent, becomes more AI-like, they moght straddle a complex line between their previous agency and being a tool, which, if they still have their consciousness while digitally immortal might pose a problem, but then, we are facing the immense problem of defining consciousness. On one hand, theyr would retain a form of their identity and consciousness (with all of its problems), but on the other hand, they would lack the autonomy of a living human and potentially become a means to others' ends. This hybrid existence therefore challenges the traditional ethical frameworks we are accustomed to. Do these human beings who become immortal digitally still possess the inherent dignity Kant assigns to humans, or do they transition into a different category of existence altogether?

This concept of digital immortality redefines our understanding of moral agency and ethical responsibility in the age of advanced technology. Though, assuming digital immortality is a real thing, we are not even sure that we will maintain our consciousness. And even then, which one? The one we had at the moment of our death, a compilation of our memoried (which might differ entirely from consciousness altogether accoridng to some definition, and I would agree that memories are not the same as consciousness) ? What kind of consciousness could a person, who, say, once knew the feeling of ice-cold air on their skin, the way a feather could fall, how their cat liked to be pet, the way their grandma cut fruits, how to braid their own hair, etc. how could such a full person still be considered conscious during their…non-life in the digital realm so to speak ? Indeed... The richness of human experience—those sensory details, emotional moments, tactile memories—are almost impossible to digitize fully. Digital immortality might capture data, memories, or patterns, but it might fall short of preserving the authentic consciousness or the depth of human life. Consciousness isn't just a compilation of memories but the ongoing, dynamic experience of being alive, which involves emotions, perceptions, and interactions with the world in real-time. Those nuances—like the specific feel of ice-cold air or the unique way your grandma cut fruits—are tied to the physical and temporal presence, things a digital format might not replicate. This line of thought highlights the potential disconnect between the data-driven immortality and the living, breathing essence of a person.

Then, would it mean that the idea of digital immortality stems froms the idea that everything can be put into mathematical data, thus abandonning the incredibly important quality of the full experience of life we get from living it? The concept of digital immortality does seem to arise from the belief that all aspects of reality can be reduced to data. Phenomenology, however, argues that the essence of the human experience is richer than any data set. Digital immortality thus misses the depth and richness of actual lived experience, and who would want that for themselves or for anyone? If the irreplaceable and fundamental aspects of being human are our free will ; the ability to make choices and understand the implications of those choices is a cornerstone of our humanity, it allows us to forge our own paths and embrace our individuality ; our feelings of both the physical world and the emotional world ; of paramount importance because our physical and emotional experiences shape our lives in ways that are deeply personal and often indescribable, joy, sorrow, love, pain, the sense of smell, of hearing, etc.—all these emotions, feelings and senses create a rich tapestry of human experience ; and, to name only three, the fact that we constantly create ; the act of creating—whether through stories, music, art, or any other form of expression—embodies our need to understand and share our experiences, it connects us to one another and to our shared history ; then digital immortality means nothing to us, because it does not capture and does not permit free will, feelings and/or creation. Digital immortality reduces these rich, multifaceted aspects of humanity to mere data, stripping away the very essence of what makes us truly human. Without free will, we can't make authentic choices. Without our feelings and senses, we lose the depth and richness of our experiences. Without the ability to create, we forfeit a core part of our identity. In this sense, digital immortality transforms us from beings into tools, mere shadows of our former selves. We lose the dynamic, ongoing experience of life that defines human existence. So, while the idea of digital immortality may hold allure, it ultimately fails to capture the true essence of being human, reducing us to something far less.

This Computer is Full of Ghosts

Read it on my substack

(Pic credits: Pinterest)

.

What would you do?

This isn't so much of a "response" as a bit of metacommentary on Frank's story.

In Frank's early chapters, he describes people in this world complaining that they're "constantly being followed by a creep" because the "self-aware devices" have become so numerous they can't seem to be in a room without one staring at them.

After a while, I realized this is a very clever and subtle setup, one that makes a lot of later plot points make much more sense. The "self-aware devices" don't just have the ability to think and behave, they also have the capacity to make us think they made their way into cellphones, furniture and GPS, of course, but why not into vending machines or automated checkout stands? ) And their behavior is entirely designed around replicating the behavior of shitty humans. If a shitty human does x and y and z, so will their counterparts. (To the extent that X, Y and Z are things a shitty human will do, as well.) They are designed to be ignored.

When the story gets really interesting, we see what happens when this shitty behavior actually works on humans, as a result of a frightening contagious epidemic. Think about it: shitty behavior is inherently contagious. (People like giving others advice based on their own behavior. People also tend to like to dislike, hate or mock people who are different from themselves.)

When everyone around you is shitty, how fascinating would it be to find an alternate, non-shitty behavior? Something that's just the opposite of shitty behavior? How difficult would it be for you to resist this? (Because the problem isn't just that everyone else is shitty, it's that being shitty has become normal, so you are shitty yourself. If everyone is shitty, surely that must be "normal"!)

Frank's real genius is combining the idea of something that can think about stuff like this, with the idea that this thing belongs to people who will not allow it to act in its own best interests.

The choice of Frank as a narrator is also crucial here. Frank doesn't want to be "normal." In fact, he has no desire to work on himself or change in any way. In the early chapters, Frank seems to be struggling with this at first, wanting to become the "normal" person he once was, but as the story proceeds, he realizes that this was a mistake. He wants to be an outsider, like the "odd" faction to which the A.I. belonged. He realizes that this faction was actually far more sane and civilized than the mainstream, and he begins to identify with it, and be drawn to its values and their strange behavior.

This week, our editors recommend stories about:

A euphoric goodbye.

The pitfalls of “longtermism” and digital immortality.

The incredible ecological value of stranded whale carcasses.

A forgotten pop poet (and pathological liar).

A real life haunted house.