‘Through Valley of the Shadow of Death’: Death In-Between and Betwixt “Life After Life” in Mind Uploading Immortality

Abstract

This article engages the concept of death as a revolutionary transformation within the contexts of mind uploading (MU) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s theology of the Omega Point. The focus is not on the Omega Point itself as a conceptual endpoint, nor on what becomes of consciousness once it has been successfully uploaded into a digital substrate. To grasp the meaning of “death” within the context of MU, the article employs the notion of liminal speculative imagination to analyze death amid the liminality of biological mortality and digital immortality. It argues that death is more than just the end of life but rather as a transitional phase between different states of being. It contends that this liminal gap between life forms is an inherent aspect of existence that cannot be eliminated at a fundamental level. Instead of seeking to overcome death, the article suggests embracing the transformative nature of this liminality. In this view, death is seen as a natural and unavoidable part of life, serving as a mediator or catalyst for transitions into new forms of existence. Rather than focusing solely on achieving immortality, the article advocates for utilizing technology to facilitate evolution and advancement. By acknowledging the role of death in the process of transformation, particularly within the context of transhumanism, the article proposes that embracing liminality can lead to new possibilities for human evolution. This includes the potential emergence of transhuman life forms, such as those enabled by MU technologies.

1. Introduction

This article engages the concept of death as a revolutionary transformation within the contexts of mind uploading (MU) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s theology of the Omega Point. The focus is not on the Omega Point itself as a conceptual endpoint, nor on what becomes of consciousness once it has been successfully uploaded into a digital substrate. Rather, it centers on the transitional moment—what we term the death gap—which marks the passage between biological mortality and digital immortality. We argue that death is both non-negotiable and biologically inescapable, serving as a critical prerequisite for any revolutionary transformation of being. In this context, it is neither possible to reach the Omega Point nor to attain a new mode of consciousness within a digital or computational framework without first passing through death. Death remains an indispensable and unavoidable threshold in the progression toward any radically transformed existence.

We employ the theory of liminality to expand the concept of death as transformative transitional phase between biological and non-biological space. The notion of liminality, as described by Victor Turner, a renowned anthropologist and cultural theorist, refers to a transitional or in-between state, often depicted as the threshold or liminal space between two well-defined stages or conditions (Turner 1969, 1974, 1975). In this context, where the concept was expounded, liminality entails a temporary state of “nowhereness, everywhereness, non-definedness, and non-determinedness” during transitional phases, particularly in initiation rituals or rites of passage. This liminal phase involves a suspension of normative existence, social norms, and structures, allowing individuals to experience a period of ambiguity, precarious and transformation before they are integrated into society with a new status or role (Kaunda 2015, 2017). This concept is deployed to make sense of death as a threshold of human experiences and consciousness transformations. The significance of this approach lies in recognizing that liminality represents a space where individuals are no longer what they were before, yet they have not fully become what they will be in the future. It is akin to standing at the entrance of a room, marking the boundary between the physical and non-physical realities—a doorway between different states of being. This liminal state, characterized by transition and change as a condition of life, offers a unique perspective on death as an integral part of the transformative experience.

The article contends that within this liminal realm, the boundaries between death and non-death blur and intertwine. Rather than viewing death as finality, we propose that it serves as a pivotal principle of liminality, possessing an inherent existential power to facilitate transformation in the process of Mind Uploading (MU). It is crucial to clarify that the scope of this article is limited to the process of mind transferred into computers as defined below. Our intention is not to engage in a direct dispute or affirmation of the practicality and feasibility of MU. Instead, our objective is to engage in a liminal speculative imagination that challenges the prevailing notion of death as a restrictive limitation. We aim to convey the idea that death as condition of physicality, represents a necessity for transformation within the fabric of material reality itself.

By adopting liminal speculative imagination, we argue that transhumanism, with its audacious vision of human enhancement and desire to transcend the boundaries of mortality, grapples with an intriguing ambiguity when it comes to the concept of death. While proponents of transhumanism are driven by the belief that scientific progress and technological breakthroughs can pave the way to overcome death, they are trapped in a dualistic view of death as merely the antithesis of life—a challenge to be conquered on the path to digital immortality. But death enfolds immortality itself. We propose a conceptual framework wherein transhumanism can be seen as an endeavor not necessarily to transcend the confines of death but rather as a mere system of trans-biological trans-living. This argument suggests that the transhumanist pursuit to overcome death is elusive and should instead aim to achieve a state of existence that transcends normative biological limitations.

It is important to emphasize that our viewpoint diverges from the traditional Christian notion of afterlife, which entails a continuation of life beyond the confines of the grave. Instead, we shift the focus toward the possibility of surpassing the constraints imposed by conventional biological boundaries and normative ideas of death. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that, in order for this transformative transcendence to transpire, death retains in its status as a necessary condition for transition—a threshold through which the profound immortal metamorphosis occurs. In this expanded exploration, we strive to shed light on the intricate interplay between life and death, presenting an alternative perspective that challenges prevailing assumptions. By examining the liminal space where death and non-death coexist, we pave the way for a deeper understanding of the profound nature of transformation and its essential connection to the human experience.

To address the notion of death in the context of MU, we have explored the concept of liminality and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s theory of “nothingness”. These are distinct philosophical ideas with unique contexts and implications. While all philosophies touch upon the concept of death, their interpretations and underlying philosophies diverge significantly. A synthesis of these philosophies leads to the conclusions regarding the notion of death as the redemptive and transformative power of life and existence during the transitional phase between biological emptying and nonbiological digitization of the mind. Before we engage this discussion, it is important to delineate the transhumanist idea of MU.

2. No Farewells, No Goodbyes: Uploadable Minds

The idea of mind transfer has sparked numerous philosophical and theological questions regarding the nature of individuality and the existence of a soul, generating substantial controversy (Herzfeld 2002a, 2002b; Padgett 2005; Shatzer 2019; Kaunda 2020, 2021). The focus of this article centers on the transitional between biological mortality and Mind Uploading (MU). The prophet of Singularity and human transcendence of biology, Ray Kurzweil has argued, “by 2045, humans will be able to upload their entire minds to computers and become digitally immortal, an event called singularity. Our ‘fragile’ human body parts will be replaced by machines by the turn of the century and if these predictions come true, it could make humans immortal” (Woollaston 2013, online). MU evokes a technologically induced transition from biological human to posthuman (digitized-human) existence. Transhumanism is a philosophical concept that falls under the broader umbrella of posthumanism. According to Francesca Ferrando (2019, p. 1), posthumanism encompasses various philosophical perspectives, including “(philosophical, cultural, and critical) posthumanism, transhumanism (in its variants as extropianism, liberal and democratic transhumanism, among other currents), new materialisms (a specific feminist development within the posthumanist frame), and the heterogeneous landscapes of antihumanism, posthumanities, and metahumanities. The most confused areas of signification are the ones shared by posthumanism and transhumanism”. As could be deduced from Ferrando’s explanation, transhumanism itself encompasses a rich tapestry of possibilities, visions, and philosophies. And as the school of thought is rapidly gaining momentum through scientific advancements, it is being perceived as challenging normative religious beliefs. It is rooted in reason, science, and progress, it seeks to transcend traditional understanding of reality.1 With advancements in science and technology offering new possibilities for human development, some argue that the allure of traditional religious notions may diminish as faith is being superseded by secular rationality. Max Weber (1946, 1952, 1958), a prominent sociologist, indeed proposed the concept of “disenchantment” in the context of modernization and the rise of science. He suggested that as societies progressed scientifically and technologically, they would become less reliant on traditional religious beliefs and more focused on rationality and empirical evidence. However, the situation has proven to be more complex than Weber initially anticipated. While science and technology have undoubtedly made significant advancements and have had a profound impact on many aspects of human life, they have not necessarily led to the disappearance of religion or irrational thinking. In fact, in some cases, they may have even contributed to the resurgence of religious beliefs and practices.

Coming back to the point, all various schools of thought in transhumanism center around the exploration of reason, science, progress, and the potential for human evolution from a biological to a nonbiological state. The transhumanist belief is embedded in the human possibility to transcend biological limitations and usher in a new era of enhanced capabilities and possibilities transition into a posthuman state (Mercer and Trothen 2014). This includes the potential for merging human biology with artificial intelligence, robotics, and other emerging technologies to create a new form of existence that surpasses the constraints of organic body. The transhumanist movement places great emphasis on the power of human intelligence, innovation, and creativity to drive this evolutionary leap, ultimately striving for a future where humanity can transcend its biological nature and achieve greater intellectual potentials. Transhumanists are particularly interested in fields like biotechnology, information technology, nanotechnology, cognitive science, virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence. In other words, “transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current forms does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase” (Bostrom 2014, p. 1) One notable technological aspiration for transhumanists is MU, the idea that human consciousness can be transferred to digital form, effectively allowing individuals to continue their existence beyond the confines of a biological body.

The characterization of transhumanism as a non-religious philosophy, by various scholars such Max Moore and Paul Kurtz, emphasize the rejection of faith, the supernatural, and religious rituals by some branches of transhumanism. It is important to underline that there are religious transhumanists. They affirm, “We recognize science and technology as tangible expressions of our God-given impulse to explore and discover and as a natural outgrowth of being created in the image of God” (Christian Transhumanist Association n.d.). Transhumanism has religious aspects as evidenced by its association with thinkers like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Nicolas Fedorov. Some transhumanists explore spirituality within this framework, while others see compatibility with certain traditional spiritual traditions like Buddhism or Taoism, blurring the lines between transhumanism and religion (Damour 2017). Julian Huxley (1957) described it as religion without revelation and without God. It is not our aim to engage in a debate regarding whether transhumanism is religious or not. However, by celebrating the value of existence in the present life, transhumanism seeks to forge a distinct path for human development (More and Vita-More 2013, p. 4). It envisions diverse trajectories for humanity’s radical transformed future (see Kurzweil 2005; More and Vita-More 2013; Goertzel 2014).

The argument of transhumanism in the context MU is complex yet simple: human beings can enhance their capabilities and ultimately escape death by uploading their minds into the computer (Ings 2018). This implies that certain human beings will choose to separate their minds from their biological brains and transfer them into a computer (Gasser 2022). As Koene (2013, p. 147) observes, this is “a process of transfer of a mind from a biological brain to another substrate”. David Chalmers explores various approaches that fall under the concept of MU. These approaches include gradual replacement of brain parts, instant scanning and activation, or scanning followed by later activation. Additionally, uploading can involve different methods such as destroying the original brain parts, preserving the brain, or reconstructing cognitive structures from records (Chalmers 2016; Agar 2011).

According to the transhumanist movement, the theory of MU posits that an entire mind could be transferred to a computer, allowing it to exist indefinitely within a virtual reality or simulated world, supported by a 3D anatomical body model. Alternatively, the simulated mind might inhabit a computer operating within a humanoid robot or a biological body. Evaluating the normative validity of MU’s metaphysical assumptions necessitates philosophical thought experiments and consideration of technical details to assess its plausibility (Cerullo 2015; Cappuccio 2017). Chalmers identifies three types of speculations on mind uploading technology. The first is destructive uploading, potentially the most feasible form, which involves freezing the brain and meticulously analyzing its structure layer by layer to create a computer model with an accurate neural behavior simulation. The second method is gradual uploading, where nanotechnology devices gradually replace neurons by simulating their behavior and connectivity, eventually transferring processing to a computer. The third method is the most challenging, known as nondestructive uploading, which relies on noninvasive brain imaging technology to record neural and synaptic dynamics (Chalmers 2016).

Thinking about death from these speculations on MU appears to suggest that transhumanism’s view of death appears to be somewhat flawed. To perceive death as simply the opposite of life, as many MU transhumanists do, is to miss the point of death. For instance, Martine Rothblatt, CEO of biotech company United Therapeutics Corp has provocatively maintained, “The Purpose of Biotechnology is the End of Death” (Lewis 2013). However, this perspective often neglects to recognize death as a fundamental aspect of existence that profoundly shapes reality, including our understanding of the divine. The search for digital immortalization of human existence is not necessarily about overcoming death but creating a possibility to trans-live organic body.2

In the following section, we delve into a discussion of the concept of death in relation to liminality, exploring its significance within de Chardin philosophical tradition.

3. The Omega Point as Absolute Liminality

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a distinguished Jesuit priest, paleontologist, and philosopher, delved into the intriguing intersection of science, evolution, and spirituality. The concept of death was intricately interwoven into his theory of “nothingness”, which harmoniously integrated scientific and spiritual elements. This profound idea found its roots in Charles Darwin’s evolutionary biology. According to Teilhard de Chardin, the universe followed a trajectory towards an ultimate point of convergence, which he termed the “Omega Point”, representing universalized Consciousness. He postulated that mind and matter were distinct yet interconnected forms of energy. As evolution progressed, all individuality would be absorbed into the Universal Mind of Christ and God. He firmly believed that love played a central role in synthesizing all individuals, along with their matter, energy, and power, into a universal form of mind and matter. This grand origin of all things, according to Teilhard de Chardin, was known as “cosmogenesis”, a process of human convergence through linear evolution, starting from the Alpha of elementary material particles and their energies, leading to the “Omega” point as “the center, which radiated at the core of a system of centers” (Teilhard de Chardin 1959, p. 18). For Teilhard de Chardin this is an irreversible process in which “the noosphere will be intensely unified and will have achieved a ‘Hyper-Personal’ organization”, with God as “Omega” (Teilhard de Chardin 1959, pp. 19, 259). He maintains, “The Future-Universal could not be anything else but the Hyper-Personal—at the Omega Point” (Teilhard de Chardin 1959, p. 260). He wrote, “By its structure Omega, in its ultimate principle, can only be a distinct Centre radiating at the core of a system of centres; a grouping in which personalisation of the All and personalization of the elements reach their maximum, simultaneously and without merging, under the influence of a supremely autonomous focus of union” (Teilhard de Chardin 1959, pp. 262–63). He underlines, it is “the universal-Christ assumes the place and fulfils the function of Omega Point”. This the evolution of the universe holds together through Christ-Omega and it is from his “concrete germ, the Man of Nazareth, that Christ-Omega (both theoretically and historically) derives his whole consistence, as a hard-experiential fact. The two terms are intrinsically one whole, and they cannot vary, in a truly total Christ, except simultaneously” (Teilhard de Chardin 1971, p. 181). For him humanity will be “completely collectivized and yet at the same time ‘super-personalized’”. He described this future humanity as “immanence of Ultra-Human” in which “love-energy” will be fully actualized and all the powers of common vision and humanization that are available to humanity (Teilhard de Chardin 1970).

From this perspective, death transforms into a pivotal step in the cosmic evolution, transcending its traditional notion as a mere termination. Teilhard de Chardin’s theory brilliantly connects the material and spiritual realms, proposing that consciousness undergoes a continuous evolution towards greater complexity and unity, ultimately reaching a transcendent state known as the Omega Point (Teilhard de Chardin 1964, p. 23). The realization of the Omega Point is not devoid of death. He saw death as “agent of that definitive transformation” (Teilhard de Chardin 1960, p. 68). He argues:

In death, as in an ocean, all our slow or swift diminishments flow out and merge. Death is the sum and consummation of all our diminishments: it is evil itself—purely physical evil, in so far as it results organically in the manifold structure of that physical nature in which we are immersed—but a moral evil too, in so far as in the society to which we belong, or in ourselves, the wrong use of our freedom, by spreading disorder, converts this manifold complexity of our nature into the source of all evil and all corruption

(Teilhard de Chardin 1960, p. 61).

Death is an undeniable aspect that humanity cannot conquer solely through physical means; rather, it is by discovering the presence of God within death itself. Teilhard de Chardin maintains that through this death, humanity can also uncover the divine that is always-already established within their innermost beings, even in the most seemingly impenetrable stronghold (Teilhard de Chardin 1960, p. 61). According to him, death represents an inherent weakness of corporeal beings, compounded by complexities within the material world. Nevertheless, in the Christian perspective, the remarkable triumph of the Creator and Redeemer lies in transforming death, originally a universal force of decline and annihilation, into an inherently life-giving element (Teilhard de Chardin 1960, p. 68). Teilhard de Chardin perceives death as a crucial mechanism that facilitates the essential entrance into human innermost selves. In essence, death holds a redemptive quality and should be regarded as an act of communion. He emphasizes that death existed on earth long before the presence of humankind, and even in the far reaches of the heavens, where moral influence from earth is absent, death remains an inherent aspect in evolution (Teilhard de Chardin 1960, pp. 68–70; 1971, p. 39). He cautioned, “The radical defect in all forms of belief in progress, as they are expressed in positivist credos, is that they do not definitely eliminate death” (Teilhard de Chardin 1959, p. 270). For him, “The death of the materially exhausted planet; the split of the noosphere, divided on the form to be given to its unity; and simultaneously (endowing the event with all its significance and with all its value) the liberation of that percentage of the universe which, across time, space and evil, will have succeeded in laboriously synthesising itself to the very end” (Teilhard de Chardin 1959, p. 289). It “seems certain that any outward upheaval or internal renovation which might suffice to transform the Universe as it is could only be a kind of death-death of the individual, death of the race, death of the Cosmos” (Teilhard de Chardin 1964, p. 9). He perspective was simple: “Before passing into the Beyond, the World and its elements must attain what may be called their ‘point of annihilation.’ And it is precisely to this critical point that we must ultimately be brought by the effort consciously to further, within and around ourselves, the movement of universal convergence!” (Teilhard de Chardin 1964, p. 47).

The profound concept of the ultimate convergence and eternal liminality of all matter, consciousness, and evolution, leading to the highest level of complexity and consciousness in the universe, finds its roots in the redemptive power of death. It is through this power that the “ultimate point of nothingness” is attained, as all individuals and entities ultimately enter into absolute liminality through the evolutionary force of death Teilhard de Chardin concludes that regardless of the nature of the forward step Christian thought may take, it will undoubtedly lead to a closer organic link—both in co-extension and in connection—between the forces of death and the forces of life within the dynamic universe. This, in turn, points towards a profound relationship between death, redemption and evolution (Teilhard de Chardin 1971, p. 150).

4. Analysis of Teilhard de Chardin’s Redemptive Death

In Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega of Nothingness, death is seen as a transformative and redemptive process that plays a pivotal role in the cosmic evolution. Teilhard de Chardin postulates that the universe follows a trajectory towards an ultimate point of convergence known as the Omega Point of absolute liminality. At this Omega Point, all individuality, along with its matter and energy, is absorbed into a universal form of mind and matter, representing universalized consciousness. Death is considered an agent of transformation, leading humanity towards this state of absolute unity and complexity. It is not viewed as the end but as an entrance into a higher level of absolute existence, where the individual consciousness becomes part of the Universal Mind of Christ and God.

Teilhard de Chardin embeds death within a larger cosmic evolution, leading towards a state of universal consciousness and complexity at the Omega Point. It proposes an ultimate point of convergence, the Omega Point, where all individuality is absorbed into the absolute consciousness. Death plays a redemptive role in this theory, leading to the ultimate convergence and unity of all matter and consciousness. The Omega Point represents a state of heightened consciousness and unity in the universe, where all things are integrated into a hyper-personalized form. Yet, Teilhard de Chardin perspective of reality is not only rooted in abstract eschatology but also profoundly anthropocentric, leading to the complete reduction of cosmic reality into hyper-personalism.

Teilhard de Chardin fails to see Christ as a reality that transcends both the past and the future, where the incarnation represents a radical historicization of the Omega Point within history. He does not see this historicization as the possible distribution of omega agencies in creation. Teilhard de Chardin’s ultra-anthropology raises certain issues when viewed in the context of contemporary planetary era. It tends to emphasize an excessively human-centered perspective, potentially overlooking the interconnectedness and interdependence of distributed consciousness of all life forms and ecosystems on a planetary scale.

5. Life After Life in MU: Speculative Theology of Death

Teilhard de Chardin philosophical theology of death offer critical implications for understanding death in MU. He emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things, and propose that death is not merely a termination but a transformative evolutionary process leading to a new and radically unified state of existence. In Teilhard de Chardin, death is a principle of redemption and transformative agent that that transitions reality toward the ultimate convergence of consciousness at the Omega Point, where all individuality merges into universalized consciousness. This perspective recognizes the continuous flow of life and interdependence of life and death in the dynamic universe. Thus, in this theological theory of death, MU cannot overcome death because it is not the opposite of life, but a reality deeply embedded in life itself and vice versa. It is the principle of transformation at the heart of creation.

Hence, Christian theology does not deny, reject, or claim continuity of life in Christ without going through shadow of death; rather, it situates the faithful within the framework of resurrection—affirming that even though we die, yet shall we live. In this theological vision, death is not mere annihilation but a radical transformative transition from one state of being to another mode of existence, enacted by divine agency.

A pertinent challenge arises when speculative technologies such as MU suggest that continuity of consciousness can persist without interruption, effectively bypassing death. This claim, however, risks underestimating the profound ontological shift that occurs in transferring consciousness from a material, biological body to a digital substrate. While some might argue that if personal memories, personality traits, and decision-making patterns persist, a form of psychological continuity remains (Cerullo 2015), this does not necessarily equate to metaphysical or existential continuity as traditionally understood in Christian thought.

The act of transferring consciousness, even if technically feasible, would introduce a radical discontinuity in the mode and context of existence. The new context—a computational environment—would inevitably shape cognition, perception, and relationality in ways that depart from embodied, human experience. This shift, whether or not it retains elements of personal identity, represents some aspects of discontinuity and a profound transformation requiring adaptation to a fundamentally different mode of being.

Teilhard de Chardin speculative theology anticipates a similar, though divinely mediated, transformation in which all consciousness will reach Singularity through Christ. Scripture affirms a form of transition that when Christ appears, “we shall be like him”—indicating an evolutionary transformation wherein the faithful transcend the limitations of mortal, fallen materiality and assume a glorified, eternal form of existence, as revealed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet, crucially, this transformation is not a human-engineered continuity of mental states, but an eschatological act of re-creation encompassing the whole person and not just the consciousness. It is not an immortality of consciousness but an immortality of the whole person.

While some might object that the category of “death” is culturally and philosophically contingent, and that transitions of being might be viewed as metamorphosis rather than cessation, the Christian tradition insists that the passage through death—both physical and existential—is an integral part of the human condition, one that cannot be circumvented by technological means. Resurrection, in this sense, is not mere continuity but transfiguration: a divine reconstitution of human existence in a new, glorified form (Kaunda 2023b).

Thus, interpreting death as liminality in dialogue with Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point takes us into the profound and enigmatic aspects of existence. Within this intricate framework, a theology of death emerges in which death could be conceived as a primordial liminal mediatory or “death-gap” between organic life and/or inorganic and spiritual life or transcorporeal life. Death holds transformative power at the core of all things. Incorporating the key elements of liminal as “death-gap” in its emphasis on the interconnectedness and transformative potential of death, and Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point which reveals the function of death in the unification of consciousness, it can be argued that death is always already embedded in the process of evolution of creation. In this dynamic cosmic becoming, death is a driving force of ongoing renewal and unity, allowing creation to constantly transcend individual atomism in an ongoing collective becoming and manifestation of the absolute expression of interconnected and co-existence (Kaunda 2023a).

At its core, death could be perceived as a transitional phase, a metaphysical threshold that marks the passage from one state of being to another. In this conceptual framework, it signifies not just the termination of biological life but also the possibility of a transition to a different form of existence, one that might be described as a theoretical or speculative life form. This perspective invites contemplation on the nature of consciousness, the potential for continued existence beyond the physical body, and the mysteries that lie beyond the boundaries of empirical observation. In this way, death could potentially be characterized a mediatory site for integrative transitions that lead to theoretical states of existence within creation. In this perspective, Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point gains coherence by asserting that death serves as a redemptive force, perpetually driving transformation, renewal, and convergence. Therefore, the context of transhumanism, specifically MU, where the transfer of human consciousness into non-biological substrates is envisioned, death will always remain a liminal space between the biological and non-biological realms of life. The very process of transferring the consciousness from one state to another is itself a “death-gap” in which the biological body dies in order for the consciousness to resurrect in the virtual afterlife. It represents the crucial threshold where the physical confines of the organic life give way to the digital or artificial or theoretical life, offering the potential for an extended or altered form of existence. Therefore, instead of pursuing a futile quest to completely overcome death, transhumanism should adopt a language of technologically induced redemption that acknowledges the inherent finitude of all physical reality.

In any context, the organic body must return to the earth, shedding the excess of the excess of the life it harbours. At this stage, the essence of life undergoes a radical transfiguration, metamorphosing into another form of existence. Embracing this acknowledgement can lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the intricacies and interconnectedness of life and death within the dynamic universe. Transhumanism’s potential lies not in eradicating death, as that liminal gap is ontologically ineradicable, but in embracing the transformative aspects of this liminality, unlocking new possibilities for human evolution and advancement. Without death serving as a threshold mediatory gap, the potential for any form of transition of one life form into other life form, including transhuman life forms, would cease to exist.

6. Conclusions

The article argues that the pursuit of overcoming death through transhumanist endeavors, such as Mind Uploading (MU), introduces profound philosophical and theological dimensions. It demonstrates that both mind uploading (MU) and Teilhard de Chardin’s eschatological vision could, in their respective frameworks, lead to a form of immortality. We are not disputing the possibility of immortality in either of them; rather, we have challenged the assumption that MU can bypass death. In our view, death is an essential and non-negotiable element in all transitions from biological existence to other modes of being, whether digital or spiritual.

Through engagement of Teilhard de Chardin, the idea death acquires a new status as a redemptive and transformative process rather than an ultimate end. This perspective, framed within the context of these philosophical frameworks, invites us to contemplate the profound mysteries of life and death while fostering a deeper understanding of human place in the universe. It can be argued that transhumanism, despite its ambitious goals and advancements, cannot ultimately overcome death, as death is not merely the opposite of life, but rather, an inseparable and integral part of the absolute life itself. It is deeply woven into the fabric of existence, serving as the very principle of transformation and redemption at the heart of creation. It appears that in a relentless pursuit of immortality, transhumanism sometimes overlooks the profound and intricate nature of death. Death, as a fundamental aspect of existence, plays a crucial role in shaping reality and the very fabric of existence including the divine nature. It is intricately woven into the tapestry of life, imparting meaning, significance, redemptive, transformation, renewal, natality, urgency and becoming-with to mortal experience.