Bodies and identity

The technological advances of the twenty-first century have not been confined to the conquest of space: the concentration of capital, research and industrial capacity that has grown up around Voidmass has simultaneously accelerated computing, robotics, genetics, regenerative medicine and prosthetic engineering. The needs of interstellar expansion have further contributed to this process: keeping human beings alive in hostile environments, replacing organs, repairing the damage caused by radiation and adapting the body to the conditions of the colonies have become at once practical requirements and sectors of great economic interest.

From these advances two families of technology have developed, destined to alter profoundly the relationship between body and identity: Soma technology, derived from genetics and regenerative medicine, and prosthetic cybernetics, developed out of robotics and neural interfaces.

Within two generations the human body has thus become a structure that can be manufactured, modified and, within certain limits, replaced. The consequence has been the need to establish which characteristics a human body must retain and, above all, which consciousness may legitimately occupy it.

Consciousness transfer and Soma

Consciousness transfer rests on the extremely detailed recording of an individual’s neurological state, termed the cognitive imprint, and on the subsequent reconstruction of the same configuration within a compatible nervous system. The imprint comprises not only memories, but also cognitive patterns, associations, skills, emotional configurations and the other dynamic elements required to reproduce the individual’s psychological continuity.

In certified procedures, the acquisition of the cognitive imprint is deliberately destructive: the reading of the neurological state progressively erases its configuration from the substrate of origin, leaving at the end of the operation a Soma that is biologically viable but devoid of the previous cognitive instance and available once more for a subsequent allocation. Between the conclusion of the extraction and the reconstitution in the destination Soma, the recorded imprint therefore constitutes the only instance of the individual.

After the transfer, the subject normally passes through a period of adaptation lasting from a few hours to several days. At the end of this phase they recover the memories recorded in the cognitive imprint, recognize people and places, retain their affective bonds and perceive their own existence as continuous with the previous one.

Whether such continuity actually corresponds to the survival of the same consciousness remains the object of scientific and philosophical discussion and is often traced back to variants of the Ship of Theseus dilemma. The Hegemonies have nonetheless resolved the problem on the administrative plane: a consciousness transferred through certified procedures is legally considered the same person who occupied the previous body.

The term Somatic Object for Mind Allocation (SOMA), or more simply Soma, arose to denote the biological organisms produced artificially for the purpose of receiving a human consciousness. Their realization has represented the most advanced result of technologies initially developed for transplants, cell culture and regenerative medicine.

A Soma is a complete biological organism, provided with blood, bones, muscles, organs, an endocrine system and a nervous system. It can therefore heal, fall ill and age like a naturally born body. The difference lies in the production process, carried out within specialized facilities capable of accelerating and controlling the development of the organism.

With the spread of consciousness transfer, the term has acquired a broader meaning and has been adopted by medicine and by legislation to denote any biological body that hosts or is intended to host a human consciousness, irrespective of its origin. In legal terms, therefore, both artificially produced bodies and naturally born ones are Soma. In common speech, above all for bodies produced specifically for transfer, the designation Shell has remained widespread.

The first Soma prototypes were produced in 2089 and industrial production followed shortly afterwards; consciousness transfer became a clinically reliable procedure between 2093 and 2095, while the general registration requirement was introduced in 2098.

The most expensive Soma are produced using the genetic heritage of the recipient and therefore constitute, save for the modifications introduced during development, biological copies of the original individual. It is possible to eliminate certain hereditary pathologies or to intervene on predetermined characteristics. Alongside personalized models there are standardized genetic lines intended for the general market, for industry and for the colonies, used when the cost or the time required to produce an individualized organism is not justified.

Production is concentrated in the hands of a few Megacorporations: Atsuki and Novalis control the greater part of the market, followed by Mirai which, on the strength of its dominant position in the artificial-body supply chain, has specialized in the production of augmented Soma, that is, Soma produced with cybernetic implants preinstalled. A substantial share of the standardized lines intended for industry and the colonies is produced by plants operating under licence from the MC themselves.

Cybernetic implants

Alongside the development of Soma, prosthetic cybernetics has made it possible to replace ever more extensive portions of the biological body with mechanical, electronic or neuromorphic components integrated directly with the nervous system. Limbs, organs, sensory apparatus and numerous other structures can be replaced both to recover lost functions and to increase their performance. Cybernetic implants can be installed both on naturally born bodies and on Soma, even before the allocation of a consciousness. A Soma subjected to modifications of this kind is conventionally termed an augmented Soma.

The grafts have found particular currency in the industrial and military sectors, in which the increase in strength, endurance, sensory capacity and tolerance of hostile environments can justify even very extensive interventions.

Clinical experience has shown, however, that the biological component cannot be reduced indefinitely: as implants increase, so too do the neurological and dissociative disorders and the disturbances in the perception of the self, classified collectively as the Drift and capable, in the most extreme cases, of leading to the development of Somatic Discontinuity Syndrome (SDS).

The problem became a matter of public knowledge after a number of serious cases concerning individuals who, following particularly extensive replacements, had developed acute forms of dissociation, alteration of identity and loss of control of the body. In the attempt to identify a relationship between the extent of the modifications and the appearance of these disorders, the first analyses showed that the quantity of residual biological tissue was an unreliable parameter: an artificial eye could weigh far more heavily than its dimensions suggested, a neural processor could produce significant effects while replacing very little tissue, whereas extensive dermal coverings had a relatively modest impact. Moreover, apparently similar replacements did not necessarily entail the same consequences.

Biological Retention Index (BRI)

In order to make the various cases comparable, the Biological Retention Index (BRI) was therefore developed, an assessment system based on the functional impact of artificial replacements rather than on their mass. The scale conventionally takes a complete and unmodified biological Soma as the value 100. Each homologated implant model is then assigned, at certification, a reduction value known as the Biological Retention Cost (BRC), which expresses the impact of the replacement on the somatic and nervous structures of the organism.

EXAMPLE: an individual with one artificial arm (9 BRI points less), both eyes replaced (6 each) and a basic neural hub (6) has a nominal BRI of 73.

The value indicated for each implant represents a nominal cost determined at certification; the presence of other implants may nonetheless modify its effective impact: devices acting on the same biological structures, nervous pathways or somatic functions may produce partially overlapping effects and result in a BRI reduction lower than the simple sum of their respective values; more rarely, incompatibilities or interference between different systems may produce a loss greater than the one foreseen. For this reason the definitive BRI is determined by certification of the Soma after every significant intervention.

The Rule of 27

The application of the BRI to a growing number of clinical cases made it possible to identify a sharp increase in complications when the index fell to approximately between 23 and 25. On the basis of these data, the European Federation conventionally set at 27 the minimum value considered compatible with an acceptable safety margin. The threshold, subsequently adopted with variations and derogations by the other Hegemonies as well, has become commonly known as the Rule of 27.

Individuals with a BRI equal to or greater than 27 are classified as BRIGHT (Biological Retention Index Greater than Human Threshold). The term has subsequently also been associated with the display of BRI scanners, which visualize residual biological activity through increasing levels of luminosity.

The moment the BRI falls below the threshold the body becomes non-compliant and the subject must immediately be brought back within the safety parameters, where necessary even by means of a consciousness transfer into an entirely organic Soma imposed by law.

Hyperwired, Cyberjunkie, Twenty-Seven, BLIGHT

Individuals who resort to implants in a particularly extensive manner are termed Hyperwired, while those who make compulsive use of them are referred to, pejoratively, as Cyberjunkie.

Individuals close to the threshold of 27 are instead commonly known as Twenty-Seven; those below the threshold are colloquially termed BLIGHT (a pejorative form of BRIGHT) and, where identified, are generally subject to mandatory detention in order to undergo the procedures laid down by the competent legislation.

Artificial bodies and the Segregation Principle

The development of the same technology used for implants has made it possible to build entirely non-biological bodies, composed of metal alloys, ceramics, polymers, actuators, sensors, circuits and neuromorphic systems. These bodies are designated industrially as Artificial Frame (AF); anthropomorphic models constitute the category of Humanoid Artificial Frame (HAF).

The most expensive HAF reproduce human appearance through extremely sophisticated synthetic coverings, while those intended for industrial use generally retain an evidently artificial conformation. Strength, endurance, sensory capacity, thermal tolerance, the number and arrangement of the limbs and the ability to operate in vacuum or in hostile atmospheres can be determined directly at the design stage. Even in industrial models, however, a broadly anthropomorphic structure is normally preserved, held to be preferable for reasons of ergonomics, of operation and of acceptability in working environments shared with human personnel.

Artificial bodies rest on a technology entirely different from that of Soma and cannot host human consciousnesses: their principal purpose is to provide a body for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems. An AGI installed in an anthropomorphic artificial body is classified as a Humanoid Artificial Life Form (HALF).

The separation between Soma and artificial bodies is enshrined in the so-called Segregation Principle:

Human consciousnesses may be transferred exclusively into Soma conforming to the requirements laid down by the BRI index; AGI may be installed exclusively in non-biological substrates, whether artificial bodies, ships or installations. Likewise prohibited is any activity of research, experimentation, development or application directed at permitting, facilitating or perfecting the transfer of a human consciousness into an artificial body, or the installation of an AGI in a Soma.

The prohibition answers to technological, ethical and security requirements. Even though it is technically impossible today, an AGI installed in a biological body could prove difficult to distinguish from a person; in the same way, it is held that a human consciousness transferred into an artificial body would be exposed to extreme forms of Somatic Discontinuity Syndrome.

Identity registration and tracking

The possibility of transferring a consciousness into another body has made it necessary to establish an objective criterion for determining who, on the legal plane, the individual resulting from the operation is; to that end the Hegemonies have adopted a system founded on the registration of bodies and on the complete traceability of every transfer.

Every legally produced Soma is entered in the Somatic Continuity Register (conventionally known as the Register), formally maintained by the European Federation but in practice recognized by all the Hegemonies. The Register is single in authority and federated in copies: in the absence of communications faster than ships, every inhabited system keeps a local replica of it, updated by the couriers at each passage, and the local replica is authoritative until the next synchronization. The replica is not, however, the only source: every Soma and every Selfmark preserves, in signed and cryptographically verifiable form, the recent part of its own history, and an authorized facility can verify it on its own, recognize events more recent than those its own Register knows of and treat them as valid provisionally, until the subsequent reconciliation. The Register preserves the producer, the origin of the cell line, the genetic profile, the principal modifications carried out and the certified succession of the individuals who have occupied it. Naturally born bodies are entered at birth with their civil-registry and biometric data and are subsequently subject to the same updating obligations.

For augmented Soma the Biological Retention Index and the principal cybernetic replacements are also recorded. Artificial bodies are instead associated with a model, a producer, hardware identifiers, principal components, firmware and authorized cognitive architectures. Every Soma further incorporates devices intended to prevent the installation of unauthorized cognitive imprints and to record any attempts at alteration. These systems do not make a clandestine transfer impossible, but they considerably increase its technical complexity, at least where a duly registered Soma is used.

Since 2098 every cognitive imprint obtained through certified procedures has been entered in the Somatic Continuity Register together with the Soma of origin, the destination Soma and the date of the operation. In the rare cases in which two incompatible entries arise in different systems before the replicas have been aligned, a phenomenon known as a Continuity Fork occurs: the conflict is ascertained only on the arrival of the courier, months later, and is resolved according to the rule described further on.

The sequence of the successive transfers constitutes the Identity Continuity Chain (ICC), or continuity chain, and represents the principal criterion used to establish the legal identity of a transferred individual. A consciousness without a verifiable ICC cannot be recognized as the holder of the identity it claims. In such cases it is deprived of any Soma it occupies and transferred to a Cognitive Holding Facility (CHF), a structure intended for the custody of human consciousnesses and AGI whose identity, provenance or legal condition cannot be ascertained.

In recent years the mandate of the CHF has been extended and also comprises the custody of the cognitive imprints of individuals whose right to dispose of a Soma has been revoked or suspended, including subjects considered dangerous, incompatible with public order or otherwise unsuited to reintegration into society.

Selfmark

The same technology used for transfer makes it possible to record a cognitive imprint and preserve it without reconstituting it immediately in a new body. These archived copies, marketed under the name Selfmark, constitute a backup of the individual as they were at the moment of recording.

A Selfmark comprises all the information necessary to reconstruct the consciousness, but contains no memories, experiences or cognitive modifications subsequent to its own creation. For as long as it remains archived it constitutes an inert recording, comparable to an encrypted database, and not a conscious mind. It can be preserved for indefinite periods and used subsequently to reconstitute the individual in a compatible Soma.

A Selfmark is a copy only for as long as the individual from whom it derives remains active. The same format is employed when an imprint is archived after the cessation of the previous instance: this is the case of the consciousnesses held in Cognitive Holding Facilities, of transfers in which the destination Soma is not yet available, or of an interstellar voyage undertaken “bodiless”, with one’s own Selfmark recorded on the ship.

The difference therefore lies not in the Selfmark itself, but in the state of the corresponding Identity Continuity Chain. When the register certifies that no previous active instance exists any longer, the Selfmark constitutes the only available continuity of the person and can be used for a new reconstitution. A copy recorded while the individual remains active instead retains the status of a backup and cannot be reconstituted until the continuity chain authorizes its activation.

The preservation of several Selfmark of the same individual is lawful and has become an ordinary practice, included in numerous insurance policies; the most complete cover provides, in the event of death or of irreversible loss of the body, for the reconstitution of the insured from the most recent available Selfmark and the supply of a compatible Soma, personalized or standard according to the contract.

The possibility of preserving several copies does not, however, permit them to be activated freely: before reconstitution it must be ascertained that the previous instance of the same identity has ceased to exist. In an ordinary transfer the ascertainment is given by the extraction itself, which is destructive, whereas for an archived copy the only route is a formal declaration of death or of disappearance, entered in the Register: the reconstitution that follows opens a new chain, linked to the previous one and marked as derived from an archive. Only after such checks can the new instance be recognized as the legal continuation of the previous one. The fundamental rule is that to each legal identity there may correspond only one active conscious instance.

Mirroring and continuity interdiction

The reconstitution of a Selfmark while the individual from whom it derives is still active produces two subjects who share, at least initially, the same memories and claim the same identity: this practice, commonly termed mirroring, is strictly prohibited in all the principal Hegemonies.

When a case of mirroring is detected, the continuity of the pre-existing identity is attributed, once the checks have been completed and the registers aligned, to the instance whose chain has never been interrupted, that is, the one that has never been declared dead. Instances reconstituted from an archive remain on the derived branch, and if the original instance dies after the ascertainment they do not inherit its continuity: in the improbable case in which both branches are coherent, the older certification prevails.

In the more fortunate cases, the other instances are recognized as autonomous individuals and receive a new legal identity; in cases where the provenance, the continuity or the conditions of the reconstitution cannot be ascertained immediately, they may be transferred to a Cognitive Holding Facility until the conclusion of the checks.

Since mirroring can be carried out without the knowledge of the original individual, against their will or without the consent of the instance produced, responsibility falls upon whoever ordered, authorized or materially performed the operation. In the most serious cases the sanctions may also provide for continuity interdiction, which entails the deletion of existing Selfmark and a permanent prohibition on recording new ones or on undergoing further transfers through authorized procedures.

The application of these rules does not depend on administrative controls and criminal sanctions alone: the systems used to record, preserve and transfer consciousnesses incorporate cryptographic signatures, hardware watermarks, secure enclaves, attestation procedures, firmware-level locks and immutable registers. Before every reconstitution the authenticity of the Selfmark, the validity of the corresponding ICC, the state of the previous instance and the identity of the destination Soma are also verified automatically. If it cannot be demonstrated that the previous instance has ceased to exist, the procedure is blocked.