003: Digital Immortality

A technological eschaton, a digital rapture - could we embed ourselves to live forever in the mind of a machine?

Editors Note: This blog post is an AI-generated summary of an in-person conversation held on 2023-08-20 in San Francisco facilitated by

Fartein’s Substack

The quest to digitally map human consciousness invariably raises profound philosophical, ethical, and technical questions. The essence of human consciousness, steeped in emotions and subjective experiences, remains an enigma, challenging the notion that cognition alone constitutes consciousness. As digital personhood and the concept of digital immortality gain traction, we confront the limitations of purely logic-based cognition. Human consciousness, as it appears, emerges from a physical embodiment, suggesting that true digital personhood requires more than just computational prowess.

This understanding aligns with the concept that our consciousness is not tied to permanent structures but is more about the patterns and connections between neurons that continuously rebuild and reconfigure over time. This fluidity of consciousness raises critical questions about identity and its mutability. Are we fundamentally the same person over time, considering our ever-evolving experiences and perspectives? This inquiry is particularly pertinent when discussing digital immortality, where the replication of consciousness raises ethical questions about agency, control, and consent.

For instance, if a digital entity is created posthumously, who governs its actions, and what implications arise if it continues to operate autonomously? This concern extends to the accountability and responsibility of such entities. If our identity is in constant flux, how do we reconcile past actions and statements of a former 'self'?

Moreover, the prospect of digital immortality potentially threatens the natural cycle of social change, which often relies on generational turnover. If beliefs and power structures become crystallized in immortal digital beings, we risk perpetuating existing inequalities and impeding progress. Particularly alarming is the potential for specific personalities, such as political leaders, to retain influence indefinitely through digital instantiation.

The monopolization of digital immortality by the powerful is another critical concern. If this technology is controlled by corporations or states with primary motives of profit and self-preservation, it may not align with the broader interests of humanity. Instead, democratization and oversight are necessary to ensure an equitable technological future.

Amid these concerns, some argue for a shift in focus. Instead of striving for individual continuity, we might be better served by aiming to integrate and reflect upon collective ancestral wisdom. This approach resonates with reincarnation philosophies, emphasizing the accumulation of wisdom and experience across lifetimes and substrates.

Furthermore, there is a growing sentiment rejecting the goal of preserving any one consciousness or identity indefinitely. The value, instead, lies in ideas, writings, narratives, and visions that transcend individual existence. This perspective offers a more holistic approach, embracing the transient nature of life and consciousness while preserving the essence of human experience and wisdom.

In conclusion, the journey to understand and replicate human consciousness digitally is fraught with complex ethical, philosophical, and technical challenges. As we navigate this terrain, the works of thinkers like Daniel Dennett, who explores the nature of consciousness, and Yuval Noah Harari, who delves into the future of humanity and technology, offer invaluable insights. John Searle's thoughts on the philosophy of mind and consciousness, and Shoshana Zuboff's analysis of surveillance capitalism and its implications, also provide critical perspectives in understanding the broader implications of these advancements. These intellectuals offer frameworks that can help us navigate the ethical and existential quandaries posed by the advent of digital immortality and the evolving nature of human consciousness.

---

Notes from the conversation

- Death plays different ecological roles in biological vs. digital systems. In biology, death recycles resources. In digital systems with infinite reproducibility, the meaning of death is unfamiliar.

- Biological organisms pass on low-fidelity genetic information to descendants. Digital systems could allow higher-fidelity transfer of memory and behaviors.

- Humans collaborate in positive-sum games to increase total resources, unlike competing species with zero-sum dynamics. Death drives social progress by recycling anti-creative perspectives. Immortality may threaten social change.

- Limited lifespans cause climate change inaction. Extremely long or even immortal lifespans could improve long-term decision making, but equity concerns arise.

- Open individualism sees fractal intelligence distributed across people. Closed individualism sees unique experiences. Digital immortality depends on this spectrum of perspectives on consciousness.

- Some Eastern philosophies have long seen reincarnation as experiencing substrates over lifetimes, becoming one with a shared cosmic soul. Digital immortality promises that broad perspective.

- LLMs have narrow, language-based intelligence. Truly digitally immortal selves would need to incorporate more aspects of consciousness to feel fully alive.

- The ability to improvise or put on a "facade" does not necessarily reflect true understanding or competence. We often conflate plausibility with authentic expertise.

- To create a compelling "digital twin", we need rich, personalized data that captures both internal and external facets of a person. Simply mimicking behaviors or recommendations is insufficient.

- Our identities and consciousness may be less tied to specific molecules or cells, and more about the patterns, goals, and algorithms that emerge. Thus, gradual augmentation over time could still preserve "self."

* There is an open philosophical question about whether seamless digital transfer of consciousness represents continuity or destruction of the "self." It depends on assumptions about the nature of identity.

- Different cultural perspectives (like ideas of the soul or reincarnation) lead to very different intuitions about notions like digital immortality. There are rich philosophical implications to explore here.

- Building systems that externalize internal dialogues and thought processes, though extremely difficult, could be key to creating true fidelity.

- Immortal digital beings may perpetuate existing power structures and incentivize extraction of value from people by emulating intimate relationships. Corporations could exploit people's care for family members by creating addictive digital clones.

- There is a tension between imagining idealized digital futures and the economic realities that shape technology development. Utopian visions ignore the profit motives and political economies driving actual tech progress.

- Nation states and corporations already exhibit some immortal characteristics, accumulating power across generations. Their incentives become misaligned with citizens when they overprioritize self-preservation.

- An immortal being's personality and motivations would be locked in over time rather than evolving organically. This rigidity opposes typical human growth and could exacerbate harmful traits like greed or exploitation. We must be thoughtful about the objectives we instill in digital entities.

- As biological beings, we have an innate connection with nature and physicality. Perfect digital simulations may fail to replicate essential aspects of the human experience like sensory embodiment. Preserving some physical form preserves what makes us human.

- The concept of an exact digital copy or "clone" of a person's consciousness raises complex philosophical questions about personal identity, accountability, and the nature of the self over time. There may not be clear answers.

- Rapid advancements in technology could lead to scenarios that deeply challenge society's notions of individuality, humanity, life and death. We may not be prepared to grapple with the ethical dilemmas that arise.

- As our views of reality and consciousness evolve, concepts like "entities", "egos", and discrete personal identities may give way to a more fluid, interconnected understanding of minds and experiences. This could profoundly reshape politics, economics, and social structures.

- Rather than seeking technological immortality through copied consciousnesses, we could focus more on spreading visions, narratives and helpful ideas that live on through others to bring positivity into the world. Our writings and visions can outlast us.

- If we see ourselves as ever-changing beings, without fixed essences, the idea of uploading a consciousness copy loses meaning. Our dynamic growth and context shapes who we are as much as any static internal "self." Preserving that complexity technologically may not be possible or meaningful.

Questions

- How can we ensure digital immortalities or twins uphold dignity and agency of the original person?

- In what ways could digitally uploading consciousness or skills limit personal growth and cultural evolution?

- What frameworks or guidelines could help navigate tensions between different views on human enhancement?

But overall there did not seem to be clearly unresolved, insightful questions asked that would warrant further examination by the reader. Let me know if you would like me to take another look or try rephrasing potential questions.

- If digital immortality becomes possible, how might that change humanity's perspective on concepts like death, forgetting, and progress that seem tied to mortality?

- How could infinitely reproducible digital lifeforms relate to the ecological roles that death and scarcity play in biological systems?

- How might digital immortality impact open vs closed individualism and the notion of a shared consciousness or substrate?

- If a future AI system could encapsulate all of human knowledge and culture, would it represent a form of diffuse digital immortality even if not conscious?

- Could digitally immortal selves potentially gain a broader perspective on life comparable to thousands of years of human history?

- Would a collective digital consciousness help us better empathize and solve problems, or would it be psychologically destabilizing?

- How do different cultural/philosophical traditions conceive of personhood and the soul, and how might that inform perspectives on digital immortality?

- Do we see AI as a friendly entity or threatening monster - does this fall along cultural lines?

- What legal implications might digital immortality and AI identity have?

- What information do we actually have available to create digital twins that accurately reflect someone?

- What small, daily actions can we take to maximize our ability to create accurate digital immortal versions of ourselves?

- If given the choice between becoming fully digital or keeping your biological body, which would you choose and why?

- How will societal constructivism and current political economy shape the development of digital immortal beings - will it actually lead to a utopia or something more dystopian?

- What will the motivations and incentives be for immortal digital beings - will they operate more like corporations focused on self-perpetuation or like humans with more complex motivations?

- How will power dynamics between corporations and immortal digital beings play out - will corporations try to control immortal beings to further their own interests?

- Could immortal digital beings be used as highly effective extractive mechanisms against humans through personalized relationships, almost like digital honeypots?

- If we are constantly changing as people over time, can we truly create a perfect copy or clone of our consciousness?

- What defines personhood and identity - is it our continuous consciousness, or the ideas and values we hold?

- If we don't carry the same identity throughout our lives, should we be held accountable in the same way for past and future actions?

- Why do some people care about preserving or copying their consciousness after death if they believe consciousness is fluid and changing?

- How drastically would society need to change to align with a view of non-fixed personal identity and consciousness?