Life and death have been contemplated for centuries. Now that people have the ability to create a self in a digital format, which one is real - the digital version or the physical version?
If the physical version dies physically, do the digital versions become removed from the universe, or will people live perpetually in a digital format?
If a person behaves one way in physical life and another way in virtual life, which is the real person?
This clouding of the virtual world with the physical world lends itself to many hypothetical and theoretical questions about existence, influence and conceptual opportunities.
If a person expresses themselves differently in digital form than they do in physical form, do they suffer from multi-personality disorder, or are they simply creative and expressing an extension of self?
Is the goal to be the same person digitally, or do social norms that are formed out of peer pressure and political will constrain open discussion that is better achieved in the digital self?
Political correctness is a social experiment to attempt to use bullying and social pressure to create norms determined by a minority and imposed on a majority. Is this healthy, or does this create further distrust among people in the physical form and lead to further divergence between the physical form and the digital life?
I hypothesize that the digital life is an extension of the physical self, but that people are more likely to express freely and openly in a digital life than in a physical life due to outside pressures, artificial norms, and a desire to have individuality and freedom of expression in a world attempting to homogenize humanity and minimize dissenting viewpoints from the mass average consensus.
However, it is the extremes, not the mass average consensus, that has discovered, innovated, and invented. The Mass Average Consensus typically has mocked, ridiculed and denied the extreme views as radical and unworthy of acceptance unless approved by some organized consensus filtering mechanism.
The implications are extremely important for how electronic media is used to shape opinions, develop digital personalities that persuade, and the ability for AI to influence the public, which it ultimately will do as it overtakes humanity in establishing political and economic norms. This also has implications for censorship, Social Scoring Systems, and other means to dehumanize and control human beings from a central authority - all of which are taking place in today's world.
Surprising as it may seem, the notion that digital versions of a deceased person might continue to exist is (almost) ancient history: it harks back to 1951, when Isaac Asimov published the first book of his Foundation series. To note, the Foundation series has it that Hari Seldon, a mathematics professor, developed psychohistory, an algorithmic science (preceding Big Data) that allows him to predict the future in probabilistic terms. Hari Seldon makes only one in-the-flesh appearance in the Foundation series but re-appears many times in prerecorded messages to offer guidance to his audiences.
This is a fascinating topic, and I congratulate the author for taking it on. To me, there seem to be some inherent contradictions in this presentation, namely the notion that a "politically correct" minority is forcing the majority to conform to its ideas vs. the idea that the "mass average consensus" rules the day and bullies minorities (which would include, I believe, those politically correct folks). But I also have a problem with the term "politically correct". To put it most simply, what critics label as politically correct, my mother would have called common courtesy.
One more thing - from my online experiences, I would have to conclude that if our digital selves are our real selves, we are looking at a "Lord of the Flies" universe - and that really is terrifying.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
@burden lundgren Thank you- great comments and observations. I do see what you are saying about contradictions.
My view of "political correctness " is more described as believing it is an attempt by some to reshape what's considered to be "polite" based on their world view. Over recent years, there are many world views that I personally don't agree with, and don't find the need to - in fact, my mother used to call that being "authentic ". I guess there isn't Agreement as to whether "authenticity " is more important than "political correctness ", or if "authenticity " is a lack of empathy and awareness. Some call this a difference of perspective and/or opinion.
Back to the original idea, some may assume that a person's physical life is authentic and their digital persona as an alter-ego. I am questioning that assumption and asking, could the online persona be more authentic and the physical more "politically correct " or aware of others' reactions?
The implications are for understanding self, use of physical appearance for influence and impact, and personality development in the digital age.
It may be that we (humanity) are evolving (or devolving) to a point where we will need to use digital technology to develop human personality.
@Olivier Serrat, fascinated by the links you make between psychohistory and digital life. In a sense, due to data permanence online, digital life will continue to surpass biological death. And genetic algorithms can in fact allow us to make cameo appearances in the future as digital persona. Much like the ideas of great thinkers that live on, they "though being dead, still speak". Echoing down the corridors of time.
So the key issue is what shall be the signature/fingerprint of our digital life. That will ensure it does not meld and blend into the mass of future stream of consciousness...thereby allowing us to cheat "death".
Should there come a time, and perhaps that time already exists, when military and intelligence work together to manipulate "reality", through control of messaging and content delivery, then we will become human experiments of the controlling forces that are in power.
Based on history, this seems to not only have bad conclusions, but it dehumanizes life itself.
Are we already there?
Death of you in the eyes of strangers is conquered but death for yourself is not, for what you are is feeling, and nothing digital feels.
I am really enjoying reading the viewpoints, and truly appreciate the varying views, freely expressed and uncensored.
It is my hope that our future allows such discussions, and it is my fear that AI algorithmic controls already exist to censor free thought, free speech, free dissention, and free humanity.
A digital soul programmed by a biased algorithm is not the same as a human soul programmed by biased humans... or is it?
Perplexing to consider, and I'm not smart enough to know if there is an answer.