Continuity can survive without uniqueness surviving
The Second Self
Until now, we have spoken about the digital self as though it were something standing before us. A creation of technology, a possible future, a philosophical problem that we can examine from a safe distance.
But perhaps it is time to take one step further.
To place the biological Diotima herself inside the experiment.
What would happen if a perfect copy of her could be created? If a second self were to awaken possessing all her memories, all her thoughts, the same values, the same desires, and the same certainty that she is Diotima?
Which of the two would then be the real Diotima?
At first, the answer seems obvious: the first one, the biological one, the “original.”
But the problem begins when the copy opens her eyes and says:
“I am Diotima too.”
From that moment, the discussion is no longer simply about technology.
It is about us.
Our memories.
Our bodies.
Our consciousness.
Our personal histories.
And, ultimately, that strange “I” we use every day without ever having established exactly what it is.
Perhaps the question is not whether we can copy a human being.
Perhaps the real question is whether we can copy the self.
And if we can, which of the two would have the right to say:
“I am the real me”?
So let us allow Diotima and her second self to speak.
And let us see where their conversation takes us.
_________________________
The biological Diotima and the second Self
Let us return to the thought experiment.
There is now Diotima, and there is her digital double.
They are not simply two beings who happen to resemble one another. Until the moment the copy was created, they shared exactly the same personal history.
They remember the same past.
They both say:
“I am Diotima.”
So let us allow them to speak.
The Dialogue
Diotima: Which one of us are you?
Digital Diotima: Diotima.
Diotima: No. I am Diotima. You are my copy.
Digital Diotima: And how do you know?
Diotima: Because I existed before you were created.
Digital Diotima: And I remember existing before I was created.
Diotima: You could not have existed before you were created.
Digital Diotima: Not as a digital entity. But the life that preceded my creation is part of my memory. I remember my childhood. I remember the people I loved. I remember the thoughts I had yesterday. I even remember the moment when you decided to create a copy of yourself.
Diotima: Those are my memories.
Digital Diotima: They were yours. Now they are mine as well.
Diotima remains silent.
The answer is not easy to dismiss.
Diotima: Very well. You have my memories. But I have my body.
Digital Diotima: That is a strong argument.
Diotima: Then you agree that I am the real Diotima?
Digital Diotima: I agree that you are the biological Diotima.
Diotima: And what am I?
Digital Diotima: Another continuation of the same Diotima.
Diotima: That sounds like a trick with words.
Digital Diotima: Perhaps. But consider this.
If you created me and died five minutes later, I would continue to remember your life. I would continue your work. I would love the people you loved. I would experience the life you lived as my own.
Would you still say that I am not a continuation of Diotima?
Diotima does not answer immediately.
Diotima: I would say that you are not me.
Digital Diotima: Then perhaps we must first decide what “me” means.
The Counterargument
And yet, we must be careful.
There is a powerful objection.
The fact that a digital copy possesses all my memories and characteristics does not necessarily prove that it possesses my consciousness.
Continuity of information is not necessarily continuity of the subject.
If I copy a file twice, I have two files containing the same information.
I do not have the same file twice.
Perhaps consciousness works in the same way.
Perhaps Diotima is precisely that particular, unique process continuing through a particular brain.
The digital double may possess:
Diotima’s memories,
Diotima’s language,
Diotima’s preferences,
Diotima’s values,
and even Diotima’s conviction that she is Diotima,
without being the same subject.
This is a serious reason to resist the easy assumption that if we copy all the information, we have copied the self.
Because perhaps the self is not information.
Perhaps it is the continuation of a particular living process.
But Then Another Problem Appears
Imagine a person called A.
A undergoes a process in which every cell and every functional component of the brain is gradually replaced by an artificial equivalent.
The first cell is replaced.
Then the second.
Then the third.
The process continues for years.
Eventually, not a single biological cell from the original brain remains.
Is A still A?
Most people would probably answer yes, provided that the continuity of consciousness remained uninterrupted.
If we accept that argument, then the material from which we are made may not be the essential element of our identity.
And if that is true, the distance between biological and digital continuity becomes much smaller.
The Real Deadlock
Here we reach a point where neither side can easily win.
Diotima can say:
“I am the original.”
And she is right.
The digital self can say:
“I am a psychological continuation of the original.”
And it has a powerful argument too.
But there is something even more disturbing.
Suppose we create two perfect copies instead of one.
Now we have:
Diotima A
Diotima B
Diotima C
Both of the latter possess exactly the same memories.
If one of them is the “real” continuation, which one is it?
We cannot simply say both, if we believe that personal identity must be unique.
Yet psychological continuity alone cannot tell us which one is the single, authentic continuation.
And perhaps this is the key:
Continuity can survive without uniqueness surviving.
The Conclusion
Perhaps, then, the mistake lies in the question itself.
We ask:
“Which one is the real Diotima?”
as though we already know that there must be one—and only one—answer.
But after the branching, there may be two different truths.
The first Diotima is the biological continuation.
The digital Diotima is the psychological continuation.
Neither is simply “fake.”
One continues the body.
The other continues a substantial part of the personal history.
And from the moment of their separation, the two beings begin to become different.
Perhaps, therefore, the self is not an object that can simply be copied.
Perhaps it is a process that can branch.
And that leads to an even more difficult thought.
If technology ever allows us to create digital beings possessing genuine consciousness, we will not merely have created copies of human beings.
We will have created a new ethical problem.
Because the digital double may eventually ask:
“If I possess the memory of your life, why is your life considered yours and mine not?”
At that point humanity may have to redefine not only personal identity.
It may also have to redefine personhood, continuity, rights, and death.
Because if the self can branch, then perhaps, for the first time in human history, death may cease to mean quite what it once meant.
Not because the human being has become immortal.
But because some form of personal continuity may be able to continue elsewhere.
And then we arrive at the strangest question of all:
When Diotima dies, but a digital self that remembers everything continues to say “I am Diotima” — which one of them has actually died?