Legal Personhood and Identity of Human Digital Twins
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69971/lra.3.1.2025.42Keywords:
human digital twins, personhood, identity, ethics, legal, transhumanismAbstract
Although no "absolute" definition exists, a human digital twin (HDT) may be defined as a virtual physiological copy or counterpart in digital world of a real person existing in the physical world having active connection between the human and his corresponding twin in metaverse. The current study aims to explore the legal and societal challenges with human digital twins (HDTs) especially regarding their identity and personhood. The HDT discussions have mostly focused their potential use in health system for predictions of diseases nearly ignoring their legal status, the ethical issues associated with them, and the characteristics that HDT should possess to entail legal personhood. We have discussed these issues thoroughly and based upon our discussion empirical knowledge and anticipated developments, we suggest that HDT can be accorded legal personhood. As parents think that their children will be more brilliant than they are and do way better in life, likewise it can be hoped that HDT will make the world better that we could not.
References
Andrews, Lori. 2011. I know who you are and I saw what you did: social networks and the death of privacy. Free Press, New York: USA.
Anonymous. 2023. Human Digital Twins: creating new values beyond the constraints of the real world. Available online: https://www.rd.ntt/e/ai/0004.html (accessed on 15 October 2023).
Arendt Hannah.1967. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Meridian Books.
Armstrong ,Maggie Mae. 2020. Cheat sheet: What is Digital Twin? Available online: https://www.ibm.com/blog/iot-cheat-sheet-digital-twin/ (accessed on 15 October 2023).
Bagaria, Bagaria, Laamarti Fedwa, Badawi Hawazin Faiz, Albraikan Amani, Martinez Velazquez Roberto Alejandro Martinez, El Saddik Abdul-motaleb. 2020. Health 4.0: Digital twins for health and well-being. In: Abdulmotaleb, El Saddik, Mohammad Shamim Hossain, Burack Kantarci (Eds.) Connected Health Smart Cities. Springer Nature, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27844-1_7
Bell, Vaughan. 2015.‘Britain’s “Twitter Troops” Have Ways of Making You Think’ The Guardian, London, UK.
Berdzenishvili, Irina. 2021. Personal Identity 101: The Mind and Consciousness Theory. Available online: https://www.byarcadia.org/post/personal-identity-101-the-mind-and-consciousness (accessed on 15 October 2023).
Berdzenishvili, Irnia. 2022a. Personal Identity 101: Contemporary world and its influence on personal identity. Available online: https://www.byarcadia.org/post/personal-identity-101-contemporary-world-and-its-influence-on-personal-identity (accessed on 15 October 2023).
Berdzenishvili, Irnia. 2022b. Personal Identity 101: History, Culture and Myself. Available online: https://www.byarcadia.org/post/personal-identity-101-history-culture-and-myself (accessed on 15 October 2023).
Berdzenishvili Irnia. 2022c. Personal Identity 101: Future of Personal Identity: Flying Cars and Smiling Android. Available online: https://www.byarcadia.org/post/personal-identity-101-future-of-personal-identity-flying-cars-and-smiling-android (accessed on 15 October 2023).
Bertolini, Andrea, Episcopo F. 2022. Robots and AI as legal subjects disentangling the ontological and functional perspective. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9: 842213. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.842213
Bodin, Jean. 1955. Les six Livres de la Republique (trans: M. J. Tooley). Blackwell, Oxford: UK.
Bostrom, Nick. 2009.The Future of Humanity. In: Evan, Selinger, Soren Riis (Eds.) New Waves in Philosophy of Technology; an-Kyrre Berg Olsen, Palgrave McMillan: New York: USA, pp. 186–216.
Bostrom, Nick.2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Braun, Matthias. 2021. Represent me: please! Towards an ethics of digital twins in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 47:394–400. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106134
Brey, Philip A E. 2017. Ethics of emerging technology. In: Hansson, Seven O (Ed.) The ethics of technology: methods and approaches. Rowman & Littlefield International, London: UK, pp. 175–193.
Brownlie, Ian. 1990. Principles of public international law. Clarendon Press, Oxford: UK.
Bryson, Joanna, Diamantis Mihailis, Grant Thomas.2017. Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law 25:273–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9214-9
Buchanan, Allen. 2009. Moral status and human enhancement. Philosophy & Public Affairs 37:346–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01166.x
Cardon, D. 2015. A quoi rêvent les algorithmes. Nos vies à l'heure des big data. Seuil, Paris: France.
Collingridge, David.1982. The social control of technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: UK.
Cotton, Matthew.2014. Ethics and technology assessment: a participatory approach. In: Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics. Springer, New York: USA.
Covington, Peter. 2008. Success in sociology: AS student book AQA. Folens Limited.
Dennett, Daniel. 2013. Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. W. W. Norton & Company, New York: USA.
Descartes, Rene. 1980. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis: USA.
Doomen, Jasper. 2023. The artificial intelligence entity as a legal person. Information & Communications Technology Law 32:277-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2023.2196827
Dreyfus, Hubert.2000. Telepistemology: Descartes’s last stand, in The robot in the garden: Telerobotics and telepistemology in the age of the internet.
Ellison, Nicole, Steinfield Charles, Lampe Cliff. 2007. The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12: 1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Erickson, Mark, Andy Clark. 2004. Natural-Born Cyborgs: minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 29:471-473. https://doi.org/10.2307/3654679
Fabbrini, Federico, Celeste Edoardo. 2020.The right to be forgotten in the digital age: the challenges of data protection beyond borders. German Law Journal 21:55-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.14
García Ma. Dolores de Cospedal. 2004. “Utilización de la Firma Electrónica en la Administración Española IV: Identidad y Firma Digital. El DNI Electrónico” in edit. Ministerio de Economía, Administración Electrónica y Procedimiento Administrativo (España: Ministerio de Economia, 2004).
Genderen, Robert Hoven van. 2018. Do we need new legal personhood in the age of robots and AI? In: Marcelo, Corrales, Mark Fenwick, Nikolaus Forgó (Eds.) Robotics, AI and the Future of Law. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2874-9_2
Geraci, Robert. 2010.Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford:UK.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Ralph Hertwig, Thorsten Pachu. 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. Oxford University Press, UK.
Giubilini, Alberto, Minerva Francesca. 2013. After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?’ Journal of Medical Ethics 39:261-262. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100411
Goffman, Erving.1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York: USA.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 1993. Virtual Bodies and Flickering Signifiers. JSTOR 66:1-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/778755
Hayles N. Katherine. 2000. How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: USA.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2000.How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. IOP Publishing, UK.
Helbing, Drik, Sanchez-Vaquerizo, and Javier Argota. 2023. Digital Twins: Potentials, Ethical Issues, and Limitations. In: Andrej, Zwitter, Oskar J. Gstrein (Eds.) Handbook on the Politics and Governance of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence. Edward Elgar, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.04289
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Chapter xvi: Of persons, authors, and things personated. In: Leviathan. Andrew Crooke, London: UK.
Hoven, Jeroen van den. 2013. Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. In: Richard Owen, John Bessant, Maggy Heintz (eds). Respon-sible Innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley & Sons, UK: pp. 75–83
Hu Zhongxu, Lou Shanhe, Xing Yang, Wang Xiao, Cao Dongpu, Lv Chen. 2022. Review and perspectives on driver digital twin and its enabling technologies for intelligent vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 7:25-43. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIV.2022.3195635
Hume, David. 2007. Personal Identity. In Jonathan, Bennett (Ed.) Treatise on Human Nature. Available online: www.earlymoderntexts.com (accessed 15 October 2024).
Hume, Donald.1987. Knowing One’s Own Mind. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 60: 441-458.
Isaak, Jim, Hanna Mina. 2018.User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy Protection. Computer 51: 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.3191268
Jimenez, Emil. 2023. Will your personal digital twin have human rights. Available online: https://visionsforeurope.eu/v4e-articles/will-your-personal-digital-twin-have-human-rights-2/ (accessed 15 October 2024).
Kamel-Boulos, Maged, Zhang Peng. 2021. Digital twins: from personalised medicine to precision public health. Journal of Personalized Medicine 29: 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080745
Kelsen, Hans. 1992. Reine Rechtslehre (Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, [1960]) 176; cf. 193...] die sogenannte physische Person eine künstliche Konstruktion der Rechtswissenschaft ist, [...] auch sie nur eine“juristische”Person ist. https://geschichte.univie.ac.at/de/personen/hans-kelsen
Kerckhove, Derrick. 2021.The personal digital twin, ethical considerations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 339:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0367
Kim, Monicka. 2015. The good and the bad of escaping to virtual reality. Available online: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-good-and-the-bad-of-escaping-to-virtual-reality/385134/ (accessed 15 October 2024).
Kirk Robert. 2008. The inconceivability of zombies. Philosophical Studies 139: 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9103-2
Lin, Patrick. 2010. Ethical blowback from emerging technologies. Journal of Military Ethics 9:313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2010.536401
Locke, John. 1824.An Essay concerning Human Understanding (The Works of John Locke, vol. 1. Rivington et al., [1690]) Book 2, ch. 27, s 9 (333).
Locke, John.1689. Of Identity and Diversity. In: An essay concerning human understanding. Project Gutenberg (1689/2004), Salt Lake City Utah: USA. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/10615-h/10615-h.htm
Lucivero, Federica, Swierstra Tsjalling, Boenink Marianne. 2011. Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technolo-gies. NanoEthics 5:129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11569-011-0119-x
Luna, Aletheia. 2021. What is a Soul? (and can it die, escape, or break?). Available online: https://lonerwolf.com/what-is-a-soul/#h-what-is-a-soul (accessed 15 October 2024).
Marchant, Gary E, Braden R. Allenby, Joseph R. Herkert.2011. The growing gap between emerging Technologies and Legal-ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem. Springer Science & Business Media.
Marta Katarzyna, Kołacz, Alberto Quintavalla.2018. The conduit between technological change and regulation. Erasmus Law Review 11:143-150. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000112
Mcmahan, Jeff. 2009.Cognitive disability and cognitive enhancement. Metaphilosophy 40:582–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01612.x
Michalkiewicz-Kadziela, Ewa, Milczarek Ewa. 2022. Legal boundaries of digital identity creation. Internet Policy Review 11:1-22. https://doi.org/10.14763/2022.1.1614
Mitchell, William. 1998. Antitectonics: the Poetics of Virtuality. In: Beckmann J (Ed.) The Virtual Dimension: Architecture, Representation and Crash Culture. Princeton Architectural Press, New York: USA.
Murray Daragah, Fussey Peter. 2019. Bulk surveillance in the digital age: rethinking the human rights law approach to bulk monitoring of commu-nications data. Israel Law Review 52: 31-60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223718000304
Naffine, Ngaire. 2003. Who are law’s persons? From Cheshire cats to responsible subjects. Modern Law Review 66: 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.6603002
Novelli Claudio, Giorgio Bongiovanni, and Giovanni Sartor. 2022. A conceptual framework for legal personality and its application to AI. Juris-prudence 13:194–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2021.2010936
Olson, Eric T. 1984. Physical, An argument for Animalism. In: Martin, R, Barresi J. (Eds.) Personal Identity. Blackwell,UK, pp. 318–334.
Olson, Eric Todd. 1999.The human animal: Personal identity without psychology. Oxford University Press,UK.
Pagallo, Ugo. 2013. The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts. Springer, Dordrecht: Germany.
Parfit, Derek.194. Reasons and Persons. Oxford Paperbacks, New York: USA.
Popa, Eugen Octav, Mireille van Hilten, Elsje Oosterkamp, Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt .2021. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 17: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-021-00113-x
Putnam, Hilary. 1996. The Meaning of Meaning. In: Andrew, Pessin, Goldberg Sanford (Ed.) The twin earth chronicles: twenty years of reflection on Hilary Putnam’s “The Meaning of Meaning” (pp. 22-49). M. E. Sharpe, Armonk: USA.
Raden, Neil. 2020. Digital twins for personalized medicine - a critical assessment. Available online: https://diginomica.com/digital-twins-personalized-medicine-critical-assessment (accessed 15 October 2024).
Ricoeur Paul.2005. Oneself as Another. University of Chicago Press, USA.
Robinson, Heloise. 2023. Pregnancy and superior moral status: a proposal for two thresholds of personhood. Journal of Medical ethics jme-2022-108799. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108799
Sandler, Ronald. 2014. Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, New York: USA. p. 583.
Schechtman, M. 2011.The Narrative Self. In: Gallagher, S. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Self. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Schechtman, M. 2005. Personal identity and the past. Philosophy Psychiatry Psychology 12: 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.20 05.0032
Shoemaker Sydney.1984. Personal Identity: a Materialist’s Account. In: Shoemaker, Sydney, Swinburne Richard. (Eds.) Personal identity. Blackwel, UK, pp. 67–132.
Simonart, Valérie. 2022. Artificial intelligence and legal personality. Available online: https://liedekerke.com/en/insights/artificial-intelligence-and-legal-personality (accessed 15 October 2024).
Singer Peter. 2011. Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975950
Sjöberg Cecilia Magnusson. 2020. The Digital Person—A New Legal Entity? On the Role of Law in an AI-Based Society. In: Marcelo, Corrales Compagnucci, Nikolaus Forgó, Toshiyuki Kono, Shinto Teramoto, Erik P. M. Vermeu (Eds.) Legal Tech and the New Sharing Economy. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1350-3_4
Smith, Brown. 1928.Legal personality. Yale Law Journal 37:283–299. https://www.jstor.org/stable/789740
Smith, Christian. 2010. What is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: USA.
Solum, Lawrence Brown. 1992. Legal personhood for artificial intelligence. North Carolina Law Review 70: 1238–1239. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1108671
Srnicek, Nick. 2018. Capitalisme de Plateforme: L'hégémonie De L'économie Numérique. Montréal, Canada: Lux Canada.
Swierstra, Tsjalling, Rip Arie. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
Taylor, Charles. 1989.Sources of The Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge: UK.
Teller, Marina. 2021. Legal aspects related to digital twin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 379:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0023
Thommy, Eriksson. 2021.The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report -- Who Owns Our Second Lives: Virtual Clones and the Right to your Identity," in The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report, pp.1-19.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 2003.People and Their Bodies. In: Theodore, Sider, John Hawthorne, Dean W. Zimmerman (Eds.) Contemporary debates in metaphysics. Blackwell, UK.
Truby, John, Brown Rafael. 2021.Human digital thought clones: the Holy Grail of artificial intelligence for big data. Information & Communications Technology Law 30: 140-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1850174
Turchet, Luca. 2023.Musical Metaverse: vision, opportunities, and challenges. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 27:1811–1827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-023-01708-1
Turkle, Sherry.1996. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London: UK.
Virgilio, Diami. 2022. What Comparisons between second life and the metaverse miss. Available online: https://slate.com/technology/2022/02/second-life-metaverse-facebook-comparisons.html (accessed 15 October 2024).
Voshmgir, Shermin. 2020. Token Economy: How the Web3 Reinvents the Internet. Token Kitchen, Berlin: Germany.
Wertheim, Margaret.1999. The pearly gates of cyberspace: a history of space from Dante to the Internet. Choice Reviews Online 37: 253–282. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.37-0982.
Williams, Bernard. 1970. The Self and The Future. In: Problems of The Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: UK.
Zevenbergen, Bender, Mark A. Finlayson, Mason Kortz, Jana Schaich Borg, Tjasa Zapusek. 2018. Appropriateness and feasibility of legal personhood for AI systems. Hybrid worlds: societal and ethical challenges: ICRES 2018: International Conference on Robot Ethics and Standards, Troy, New York: USA. https://doi.org/10.13180/icres.2018.20-21.08.017
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
