Digital life after physical death

For centuries, humanity’s attempts to preserve the dead were straightforward affairs. When Isaac Newton died in 1727, craftsmen rushed to create his death mask – a plaster memorial that would capture his likeness for posterity. Nearly a century later, when Napoleon’s features began fading in death, his doctors scrambled to do the same. (“The lost art of the death mask”, bbc.com, 11 February 2024)

With the invention of the camera, the Victorians took it a step further, arranging post-mortem family portraits that modern sensibilities might find macabre. (ibid.)

Today’s technologies offer a more ambitious proposition, not just preserving the dead’s image, but simulating their presence. (“This creepy AI will talk to loved ones when you die and preserve your digital footprint”, wired.com, 5 February 2014)

Chatbots trained on social media posts and emails promise digital resurrection. In Japan, Professor Hiroshi Ishiguro has created a robotic doppelganger of himself, Geminoid HI-1, designed to evolve alongside its creator. (“Hiroshi Ishiguro: The Man Who Made a Copy of Himself”, spectrum.ieee.org, 22 April 2010) 

These developments mark a profound shift from preservation to simulation – from static memorials to interactive digital avatars that purport to learn and respond as the deceased once did. (“An eerie ‘digital afterlife’ is no longer science fiction. So how do we navigate the risks?”, theconversation.com, 23 June 2024)

This technological leap from death mask to digital ghost raises troubling questions. Traditional frameworks for processing loss emphasise death’s finality. Islamic theology, for instance, teaches that “every soul shall taste death” (Surah Aal-e-Imran, Ch.3: V.186), viewing earthly existence as merely “a pastime and a sport” compared to the hereafter (Surah al-Ankabut, Ch.29: V.65). When technology begins to blur these lines, it risks disrupting natural grieving processes. (“Resurrecting loved ones as AI ‘ghosts’ could harm your mental health”, newscientist.com, 26 February 2024)

The psychological implications are complex and largely unexplored. While a chatbot might offer immediate comfort to the bereaved, it could also prolong grief or prevent acceptance. In a secular society increasingly sceptical of an afterlife, the temptation to cling to digital replicas may prove overwhelming. The Mexican tradition of Día de los Muertos suggests people die twice. First when they stop breathing, and again when their name is spoken for the last time (“Day of the Dead, britannica.com).

Digital technology promises to postpone that second death indefinitely – but at what cost?

As artificial intelligence advances, these questions will only become more pressing. Today’s crude chatbots will evolve into increasingly convincing facsimiles. When grieving individuals can order humanoid robots embedded with digital copies of their loved ones’ personalities, society will face unprecedented ethical and legal challenges. Who owns a digital ghost? Should the dead have a say in their algorithmic afterlife? Should there be limits on how realistically AI can simulate the deceased?

The human impulse to preserve connections with the dead is neither new nor wrong. Digital tools can indeed preserve legacies and memories in valuable ways. However, they should complement, not replace, traditional grieving processes. As society navigates this technological frontier, it would do well to proceed with much caution. The digital age promises a kind of immortality through algorithms, yet there may be wisdom in accepting death’s finality. Some forms of forgetting, however painful, serve a purpose – helping the living move forward while honouring the dead by letting them truly rest.

The challenge ahead lies not in perfecting the digital resurrection technology, but in developing frameworks to govern its use. These must balance innovation with respect for mortality’s mystery. As the Quran reminds believers, “Surely, to Allah we belong and to Him shall we return” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.157). Even in an age of artificial intelligence, there may be merit in approaching death with humility rather than trying to hack it.

Strange ipsum dolor sit amet, ei officiis assueverit pri, duo volumus commune molestiae ad, cum at clita latine. Tation nominavi quo id. An est possit adipiscing, error tation qualisque vel te. Stet interpretaris nec id.

Quo natum nemore putant in, his te case habemus. Nulla detraxit explicari in vim. Id eam magna omnesque. Per cu dicat urbanitas, sit postulant disputationi ea. Duo ad graeci tamquam interesset, putant iuvaret vel ad. Id stet malis tritani est. Justo fabulas singulis at pri, saepe luptatum mei an. Duo idque solet scribentur eu, natum iudico labore te eos, no utinam tibique nam. Viderer labitur nostrud et per, disputationi mediocritatem necessitatibus ex eam. Verterem qualisque no per. Id oratio veritus antiopam duo, forensibus dissentiunt eam eu.

Patrioque assentior ea vim. Volutpat salutandi ex his, cu sea soluta melius gubergren, has latine reprehendunt ea. Has appetere electram persequeris eu. Et enim legere mediocrem est, ad eos legendos qualisque mediocritatem. Duo dolorum mandamus mnesarchum te. Sit ridens persius ex. Vel noluisse perpetua consequat ex, has nostro antiopam eu. Nec esse meis eu. Dico legendos sed an, eu sed meis ferri assentior.

Usu tantas omittantur ut, per te modo appetere senserit. Ei ius aperiam tincidunt, ea sit natum iisque repudiandae. Ea nec wisi facete. Ex hinc rebum omittam his. Enim dolore meliore ea mea. Ius ei minim possit intellegat, an sea ornatus appetere. Ei mei scripta intellegat. Verear voluptaria eam at, consul putent eu vel. Pro saepe maluisset ne, audire maiorum forensibus eos et. Diceret detraxit vis at. Eum et idque tollit assentior, ullum soleat usu id. Labores incorrupte vim an. Id augue populo alienum usu, has harum consectetuer ne, ne clita fuisset dignissim quo. Semper oportere assueverit eum eu. Ex facilisi dignissim vituperata mei, ad noluisse assueverit est. Nam no dico quas delectus.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, ridens nonumes at quo, an constituam temporibus usu. Per ex sonet dicunt, integre meliore docendi eos ex. Ne sed maiorum efficiantur, per ea petentium vituperata. Eos omnis appareat ne, consul feugiat per in. Sit latine voluptua iracundia ut, no ubique doming delenit per, ex tollit ocurreret torquatos vix. Eu ius illud antiopam, singulis maluisset te his, ut etiam eirmod aliquip sed. Tation commodo sanctus ad vix, sit tale decore posidonium eu, ius posse prodesset no.

Inani expetendis suscipiantur eum ei. His et sonet impedit nominati, vix alii sensibus eu. Cum hinc soleat ad. An sea alia denique vituperatoribus. Cum propriae signiferumque ex, id pri ludus tibique offendit. Et enim mentitum voluptatibus sea, an tempor utamur utroque nec, pri timeam quaeque prodesset no.

Nibh case tation ne vix, ius vidit omnium ea. Nam ex purto cibo platonem, cetero meliore signiferumque ex vix. Cu modo etiam vel, sea te consul fierent. Ius te scaevola deseruisse. In his noluisse assentior, vidit copiosae menandri te usu. Novum dolor scripserit at mea, modus iusto oblique vel ea, vix ea nibh diceret.