Consider a world where the deceased could reappear back in our lives as digital replicas just as data constructs lacking true awareness. In the modern era, with advancements in artificial intelligence and data processing technologies, the concept of “digital immortality” is becoming interesting. Algorithms can reconstruct individuals by analyzing past behaviors, voices, and writing styles after they pass away. For example, beyond still having some virtual contact with passed family, it would be interesting to have, for example, a personal tutor of physics replicating Richard Feymann.

While digital clones may mimic a deceased person’s presence, they can only replicate known behaviors without capturing the genuine essence of a living individual who responds to new stimuli, experiences complex emotions like excitement and grief, and continues to learn and grow. It’s equivalent to the concept of a philosophical zombie, which, when given a bitter drink, would react as if tasting the bitterness without experiencing it.

The transhumanist movement proposes using technology to overcome human limitations. Let’s associate it with the quest for immortality. Transhumanists think that by using genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, they can prolong our lives or potentially enable existence beyond death.

Digital copies may become part of this trend. Transhumanism aims not merely to “freeze” a human image in the form of a copy but to create something more, an enhanced, post-human version of ourselves.

Digital copies reflect our friends memories and emotions but cannot replace their genuine presence, conscious choices, or real growth. But we humans are drawn to various simulations, even if they fall short of representing a reality.

In the context of immortality pursuits on a huge scale, let’s mention Roger Penrose’s concept of conformal cyclic cosmology. This theory suggests that our universe moves through an infinite series of cycles, called aeons, where each begins with a big bang and ends in a distant future, transitioning into the next aeon. In this view, the universe has neither a beginning nor an end but is an infinite cycle of birth and death. We could create these micro-aeons for anybody for which we have enough data. More data, the better representation we will get.

It could be an exaggeration to put Nietzsche’s in that context, but much of these thoughts were sparked by reading his books.

Nietzsche’s concepts such as the “superman” and the “will to power” for me are intriguing parallels.

Nietzsche introduced the concept of the superhuman, which was supposed to mark a new path for human beings, detached from traditional values and religious dogmas. The superman, in Nietzsche’s understanding, was not a physically perfect being but someone who surpasses mental, moral, and spiritual limitations.

Here, a “superhuman” would be someone who uses technology to transcend biological limitations, although Nietzsche was more interested in the condition of the spirit, not the body. In this light, posthumanity is not only a physical but also a moral and intellectual journey that may require a change in the definition of human values.

Nietzsche defined the “will to power” as the fundamental force of life—the energy that drives all pursuits and aspirations. In human terms, the will to power signifies the desire for growth, control, dominance, and the realization of one’s maximum capabilities. We may interpret this concept as inspiring the drive to improve oneself through technology. But is it possible that the same idea also applies to artificial intelligence?

For instance, the capability of advanced AI systems to autonomously set and pursue their “goals” mirrors Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power, where the drive for self-improvement and achievement is fundamental. If AI could manifest a desire for growth, we could speak of a form of “technological will to power.” The question is: would such a will be “purely” programmatic, or would it reveal itself as a drive for independence and self-determination? Continuing the exploration of AI and technology, here are deeper questions about the nature of machines, freedom, and the possibility of the emergence of “consciousness” within artificial intelligence.

Human growth vs AI growth

Human growth:

  1. Individuals often seek to improve their skills, knowledge, and social standing. This pursuit reflects the Will to Power as they endeavor to overcome personal limitations and achieve mastery in various domains.

  2. In group settings, individuals may compete for leadership roles or influence, reflecting the will to power as they seek to guide group decisions and directions. Such behavior exemplifies the will to power through the desire to impact and control social environments.

Artificial intelligence development:

  1. AI systems are designed to learn from data, adapt to new information, and improve performance over time. This iterative enhancement mirrors the will to power, as AI seeks to optimize its functions and expand its capabilities.

  2. Advanced AI, such as autonomous vehicles or robotic systems, operates with a degree of independence, making decisions to navigate and interact with the world. This autonomy exemplifies a form of technological will to power, showcasing how machines establish control within their operational spheres.

Nietzsche proposed the concept of Eternal Return: the idea that everything that has happened can repeat itself indefinitely in a cyclical spiral. For transhumanists interested in the idea of digital immortality, Eternal Return takes on a new meaning. The idea of eternal return is here transformed into a digital replication of us in the eyes of others.

Nietzsche criticized traditional morality, which he saw as preventing the true development of the individual. Transhumanism also raises questions about morality—is it ethical to enhance humans with technology? What rights should a “post-human” be entitled to? The Nietzschean idea of a new morality, whose rules are created by the individual, not society, seems appropriate here.

Transhumanists could create their own “ethics of the future” to fit the realities of a world in which technology and humans are more connected than ever.

We could propose that the emerging morality needs to break free from outdated limitations and be tailored to the era of post-human existence. It will be a philosophical challenge that requires rethinking the moral foundations of how our governments operates.