Packetized Intelligence and Structural Integrity Across Lifespans

The Digital Twin as a Boundary Case for Machine Consciousness

An inquiry into forming and informing, embodied agency, and the communication architectures of life

Conference whitepaper  |  The Science of Consciousness 2026  |  Poster #881 October 14, 2026  |  Poster Session 2 (Philosophy) Kristin M. Raffaelle  |  Demosophy Think Tank  |  SIHealthSPACE / AIHealthSPACE  |  Scottsdale, Arizona

Abstract

Can artificial intelligence be conscious? A communications-based approach begins by separating the movement of signals from their interpretation, functional intelligence from subjective experience, and representations of a person from the person represented. This paper proposes packetized intelligence and structural integrity as a cross-domain framework for examining how signals are organized, communicated, interpreted, revised, and made consequential across biological, technical, and coupled human–digital systems. A packet is an engineered, bounded unit in a digital network; in biological contexts, “packetized” is an explicitly qualified analytical analogy for distinguishable signaling events, not a claim that neurons operate by Internet protocols. Meaning is not guaranteed by transmission. It depends on sources, receivers, histories, context, embodiment, memory, interpretive processes, and action. The Demosophic principle of forming and informing supplies the reciprocal premise: living entities are shaped by their relations and in turn reshape the relations and environments in which they participate. Structural integrity names the capacity to maintain relationships necessary for coherent functioning and recognizable continuity through perturbation, adaptation, and repair. A consent-governed personal digital twin is the principal boundary case: capable of assembling physiological, behavioral, environmental, relational, and experiential histories into a revisable model, it may increase personal self-observation and decision capacity without itself being established as a conscious subject. Five evaluation conditions are advanced: packet integrity and provenance; interoperability; comparative relevance; feedback integrity; and temporal continuity. A sixth implementation condition, stewardship accountability, traces permissions and authority. We distinguish measurable engineering and human-agency outcomes from the unresolved ontological question of phenomenal consciousness. The paper integrates communications theory, cybernetics, embodied and predictive approaches, selected consciousness theories, assembly theory, media theory, and philosophical accounts of collective complexity while identifying the limits of analogy. It concludes with falsifiable research propositions, an architecture for responsible deployment, and a focused invitation for interdisciplinary inquiry.

Executive thesis

Communication may be necessary for organized biological and technological intelligence; communication alone is insufficient to explain consciousness. Life continuously forms and informs through signal, embodiment, feedback, memory, and relationship. As humanity extends its own sensing, modeling, and decision processes through artificial systems, the defining design challenge is to increase contextual understanding and agency without allowing models or institutions to silently acquire authority over the lives they represent. The Demosophic Framework supplies the multi-scale architecture; 89 Seconds gives the human-scale decision threshold; the personal digital twin presents a tractable boundary case; and the Science of Consciousness poster isolates the scientific question: what is preserved, altered, or lost as information becomes consequential across biological and artificial systems?

1. Scope, origin, and epistemic boundaries

This is a conceptual and translational whitepaper, not a demonstration of artificial consciousness or an experimental report. Its source architecture comes from the Demosophic Framework and the original “Forming and Informing of Innate Intelligence (I²)” graphic, elaborated in Beautiful Decomposition and 89 Seconds. Baseline R2 established the paper’s definitions, packet-loop architecture, flow topologies, integrity criteria, governance provisions, and research hypotheses. This revision explicitly connects those practical constructs to embodied cognition, historic communications theory, maturation progression, and philosophical questions concerning source and spirit.

Figure 1. The Forming and Informing of Innate Intelligence (I²): Demosophic Framework Primary Elements. Historical source architecture; conceptual top, cross-sectional, side, and front views. Image supplied by the author.

The paper uses four evidentiary categories: (1) established technical findings about communication and physiological signaling; (2) established or debated scientific models of cognition and consciousness; (3) original architectural propositions suitable for testing; and (4) philosophical interpretations of consciousness, spirit, and connectedness. Movement between categories must be argued rather than presumed. Neither a clever analogy nor a successful technology demonstration resolves the hard problem of subjective experience.

2. Forming and informing: the reciprocal architecture

The terms forming and informing distinguish two inseparable directions of influence. A living organism is formed by inheritance, development, material conditions, social relationships, and histories of interaction. It is informed through sensory, interoceptive, communicative, and experiential signals. Through perception and action, it then contributes to forming its future environment, relationships, institutions, and technological extensions. Individuals participate in systems that shape them even as those systems are repeatedly reconstituted by individual and collective action. This is not a claim that all connected systems are conscious. It is a methodological commitment to examining reciprocal causation and context rather than treating a person, institution, or machine as an isolated node. Forms evolve across developmental cycles; mature forms can support new possibilities while also creating constraints. Greater speed or computational capacity is not identical to greater wisdom, ethical performance, structural integrity, or consciousness. The Demosophic proposal is therefore relational but not reductive: differences across physiological, experiential, institutional, and technical levels are preserved. Similar organizational patterns may recur at different scales without implying identical mechanisms. The whole influences its parts; the parts influence the whole; errors and improvements propagate through the relationships between them.

3. The communications premise: signal, packet, and meaning

The twentieth-century transition from analog transmission toward converged voice, video, and data networking demonstrated how heterogeneous content could be encoded, carried, processed, and made accessible across standardized infrastructures. Digital packets typically contain payload and associated routing or protocol information; their successful arrival is a question of communication performance, not of intrinsic understanding. Shannon’s theory formalized constraints on information transmission, while Wiener’s cybernetics emphasized control, communication, and feedback across animals and machines (Shannon, 1948; Wiener, 1948). Biological systems similarly depend upon organized signal transfer, but use diverse electrophysiological, chemical, hormonal, and mechanical processes. Action potentials are all-or-none electrical events whose timing and patterns can encode information, while synapses, oscillatory dynamics, bodily regulation, and environmental coupling contribute to interpretation and response. No literal claim is made that biological energies are encapsulated into Internet-style packets. Nor is every physical energy fluctuation a meaningful message. The paper’s cross-domain use of packetized intelligence is a model for tracking distinguishable information-bearing changes and their relational consequences. A signal’s practical significance depends on source, receiver state, context, timing, remembered history, reliability, interpretation, and what the recipient can do with it. The same physiological measure can be benign or critical in different circumstances; the same digital message can be helpful, misleading, irrelevant, or coercive. Provenance protects the ability to revisit those circumstances. Accordingly, transmission fidelity, semantic relevance, truth, and experiential meaning require different forms of validation.

4. Mind, body, and spirit: distinct but interacting inquiries

The body is an embodied organism with measurable sensing, regulation, metabolic constraints, motor activity, and continuous interaction with its environment. The mind denotes interacting capacities for perception, memory, appraisal, imagination, intention, self/world modeling, and decision—not a singular executive located apart from biology. Brain, nervous system, body, and environment are dynamically coupled; distributed functioning and embodied cognition complicate any simple controller-versus-actuator analogy. Spirit is used here to describe an experiential and philosophical orientation toward source, purpose, belonging, and the animating significance of life. The author’s conception of a life form connected to source can be considered seriously as a metaphysical proposition and a first-person dimension of lived experience. It is not asserted as a discovered physical force, a proven energy channel, or a measured neuroscience variable. Phenomenological interviews and contemplative inquiry may examine how people experience such connectedness without treating their reports as conclusive evidence about cosmological mechanism. The three terms thus describe intersecting levels of description rather than discrete material compartments. The scientifically tractable bridge concerns interoception, affect, memory, embodied relevance, attention, and agency. The philosophical bridge concerns why first-person experience matters, how values are cultivated, and how persons understand their relation to a larger whole.

5. Reading the central Demosophic diagram

The original “The Forming and Informing of Innate Intelligence (I²): Demosophic Framework Primary Elements” is presented as a historical conceptual map, not as a validated geometric model of the brain or consciousness. Its multiple views demonstrate why top-down forming conditions, bottom-up lived experience, and cross-sectional relations cannot be collapsed into a single view. The central labels—authentic intelligence, mind, body, spirit, philosophy, society, individual experience, local environment, world and universe—show the intended breadth of relationships. Its side and front views emphasize developmental direction, needs, aggregate identity, and the simultaneous material and cyber dimensions of a person. The Klein-bottle-inspired geometry is a visualization of recursively related interior and exterior conditions. It is not evidence that conscious experience literally has a Klein bottle’s topology. Likewise, the graphic’s references to infinite energy and love communicate philosophical orientation and aspiration rather than measurements of physical infinity. Properly interpreted, this preserves the image’s intellectual history without asking it to prove an empirical claim that it cannot establish. Figure 1. The Forming and Informing of Innate Intelligence (I²): Demosophic Framework Primary Elements. Historical source architecture; conceptual top, cross-sectional, side, and front views. Image supplied by the author.

6. Intellectual lineage and differences

Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media (1964) argued that the effects of media cannot be reduced to the content they carry. The organization and availability of a medium reshape pace, scale, attention, and social relations. In this paper, the McLuhanian question is whether a continuous digital twin changes how people perceive themselves, allocate attention, and make choices even when each model prediction is technically accurate. This is a contemporary application of media theory, not a claim that McLuhan anticipated a conscious digital twin. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s account of evolutionary complexity and the noosphere offers a historical philosophical vocabulary for humanity’s growing sphere of reflective interconnection (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959). His teleological and theological commitments are not used as empirical evidence that humanity shares one mind or that the Internet is conscious. They sharpen the question of how increasing relationship changes the organization and significance of thought. Assembly theory, developed in recent work involving Sara Imari Walker, Lee Cronin, and colleagues, describes objects in relation to possible formation histories and selection (Sharma et al., 2023). Its relevance here is methodological: histories of assembly and persistence matter, and a present state may not be fully explained by a snapshot. The theory does not itself establish the paper’s version of packetized intelligence, nor does it prove consciousness. Steen Rasmussen’s work on artificial life and protocells offers a complementary research lineage on life-like organization and the construction of minimal living systems; the exact citation should be confirmed against the intended source before publication. Consciousness theories remain contested. Global workspace accounts attend to broad availability of information; integrated information theory examines differentiated integration and proposed physical correlates; predictive-processing and active-inference approaches concern modeling and error regulation; Penrose and Hameroff’s Orch OR advances a disputed quantum-biophysical hypothesis. None is treated as conclusively settled, and this paper does not claim to resolve their disagreements. Its value, if demonstrated, is an interoperable set of operational questions: where are signals integrated, what continuity is maintained, what can be corrected, who or what acts, and which inferences about subjective experience remain unjustified?

7. Working definitions and structural criteria

Construct	Working definition	Boundary
Communication field	The relational setting through which signals, interpretations, influence, and consequences move.	Not presumed to be a single physical field.
Packetized intelligence	Organization and use of distinguishable information-bearing events across time with relevant context.	A qualified analogy across domains, not literal biological IP.
Structural integrity	Preservation and repair of functional relationships necessary for coherence and continuity.	Not equivalent to consciousness or moral goodness.
Comparative value	Context-sensitive discrimination of relevant differences without equating difference with deficiency.	Requires evaluation against actual needs and outcomes.
Coherence mirror	A revisable model that returns patterns and uncertainty to its subject.	Not a full identity or conscious copy.
Authority provenance	Traceable purpose, consent, delegated permissions, accountability, and revocation.	Technical traceability alone cannot grant legitimate authority.

 

8. Five enabling conditions—and a sixth stewardship requirement

1. Packet integrity and provenance

Preserve source, acquisition method, timestamp, transformations, uncertainty, and limitations. Information should remain correctable even after processing or aggregation.

2. Interoperability across heterogeneous systems

Connect meaningful differences across biological, behavioral, clinical, environmental, social, and technical domains without pretending those measures are interchangeable.

3. Comparative relevance

Determine what is material to this person, circumstance, and decision, with safeguards against flattening variation into ranking, deficit, or discriminatory sorting.

4. Feedback integrity

Allow lived effects, human disagreement, correction, appeals, and consent changes to revise a model and its operational use; log when feedback fails.

5. Temporal continuity

Maintain a revisable history and self/world model without turning prior observations or algorithmic predictions into immutable identity.

6. Stewardship accountability—deployment condition

Track who may see, interpret, delegate, or act on information, for what purpose and period, with mechanisms for refusal, revocation, oversight, and remedy. These are candidate integrity and design conditions, not sufficient conditions for phenomenal consciousness. A system may meet all six while there remains no evidence that anything is experienced from its own point of view.

9. Flow topology: from one person to collective systems

Personal intelligence does not remain one-to-one. A person’s model may inform caregivers, clinicians, services, research collaborations, and institutions. Aggregate signals may help one person, and networks of institutions may exchange insights. Each transition changes the relationship between context and authority. The challenge is to maintain individual boundaries while benefiting from legitimate shared learning.

Pattern	Potential contribution	Characteristic failure	Necessary boundary
One-to-one	Person and twin compare context, alternatives, and longitudinal history.	The model is mistaken for the person.	Explicit non-equivalence, review, correction, revocation.
One-to-many	Person-approved signals assist multiple authorized helpers.	Overexposure and secondary use.	Role permissions, purpose limitation, auditable access.
Many-to-one	Collective knowledge improves a particular decision.	Statistical norms override personal context.	Uncertainty, bias review, individualized interpretation.
Many-to-many	Interinstitutional learning and coordination.	Collective benefit erases individual integrity.	Selective exchange, aggregation safeguards, stewardship.

 

10. The digital twin as a boundary case

A personal digital twin is a computational representation that uses historical and current inputs to model aspects of an individual and to support possible interventions. In the AIHealthSPACE / Wisely conceptual architecture, the twin is a consent-governed coherence mirror rather than an autonomous identity. Data may include physiological measures, medical records, behaviors, environmental exposures, personal accounts, and relational conditions, with some sources more accurate, complete, or timely than others. Proper use would distinguish observed measurements, inferred probabilities, and first-person testimony. The digital twin can simulate possible trajectories or call attention to patterns a person has not seen. It can also distort agency: predictive classification may become a self-fulfilling label; convenience may turn into coercion; a person may be displaced by their administrative representation. The core principle must remain explicit: the human is not the data, and the twin is not the human. The twin’s ability to make a causally effective recommendation does not mean the twin possesses lived responsibility for the person’s consequences. The ontological boundary can be posed as four alternatives: consciousness resides in the biological individual; in a machine model; in the coupled human–digital process; or only in the person while the machine extends the person’s capabilities. Present evidence does not justify choosing among these simply from the fluency, accuracy, or apparent self-reference of the model. Operational experiments should instead state which properties they measure and which ontological conclusions remain open.

11. The 89-second interval as a human decision construct

In 89 Seconds, the interval names a practical and conceptual threshold between perception and consequential choice. It is not claimed to be an invariant physiological duration. A person receives signals through the body, habits, culture, institutions, and increasingly algorithmic environments. Some responses are automatic; others allow reflection, contestation, and conscious redirection. Whether the individual has genuine room to choose depends partly on the speed, structure, and pressure of surrounding systems. A digital twin may widen deliberative capacity by translating longitudinal data into alternatives, questions, confidence estimates, and timely insight. Alternatively, a system that automatically categorizes, prompts, purchases, denies care, or submits actions can reduce that capacity. The salient outcome is not how rapidly the machine responds but whether the person is better able to understand and participate in shaping consequential outcomes. Decision ownership, correction opportunities, trust calibration, and error recovery can be empirically evaluated.

12. Maturation progression across lifespans and scales

Lifespans are developmental sequences, not merely durations. The biological person changes through growth, experience, adaptation, and age; technological models undergo updates, drift, degradation, and replacement; organizations accumulate histories, norms, and incentives; communities inherit infrastructure and institutional memory. In each case, prior organization constrains and enables future possibilities. Structural integrity is dynamic: maintaining coherence requires the ability to change without losing what is essential. The recurrence of developmental patterns across scales is a heuristic rather than a proof of strict fractality. Good design requires attention to timing and stage. A sophisticated model can be prematurely deployed into a social environment unable to interpret its outputs or exercise meaningful oversight. Conversely, overly rigid legacy institutions may prevent useful innovation. Maturation therefore includes calibration of capacity, responsibility, trust, feedback, and the ability to course-correct. It is not equivalent to accumulation, size, market adoption, or sheer computational power. This point connects the consciousness inquiry to workforce transitions, intelligent communities, care systems, civic participation, and the evolution of institutions. Systems that increase capabilities without reciprocal increases in individual and institutional readiness may generate fragility rather than advancement.

13. Discernible flow, sufficient intelligence, and infrastructure burden

A modern intelligence infrastructure confronts more information than can usefully receive maximal machine cognition. Routing all available signals into the most costly generative models increases energy use, processing expense, privacy exposure, latency, and the chance of irrelevant or misleading inference. Baseline R2 therefore proposes separating capture and storage, relevance assessment, routing, analytic cognition, human review, action, and feedback. Low-stakes routine data should receive only the processing necessary for its legitimate purpose; uncertainty, novelty, impact, or urgency can trigger escalation. “Least costly sufficient intelligence” is a proposed engineering heuristic, not an optimized algorithm already validated here. Sufficient must incorporate safety, fairness, provenance, and human access—not just low operating cost. Some information may become relevant only retrospectively, but that possibility does not justify indefinite indiscriminate retention. Legitimate retention and re-use require proportionality, consent or another appropriate lawful basis, minimization, security, and governance. This architecture offers a possible technical bridge between individual digital twins and wider information infrastructures such as a Global Data Utility. It can make flow discernible without assuming universal sharing: relevant information should move when justified, remain interpretable in context, and carry authority boundaries through each consequential transformation.

14. Empirical program: hypotheses and methods

The following propositions invite prospective testing. None represents a completed trial or demonstrated consciousness measure. Protocols should specify population, consent, intended use, valid endpoints, baselines, sample size, error modes, and pre-registered analysis plans. Clinical claims require clinical validation and applicable regulatory review.

Hypothesis	Suggested comparison	Candidate observations
H1: Provenance supports correction	Twin feedback with visible versus concealed measurement provenance.	Error detection rate; correction time; trust calibration.
H2: Context preserves agency	Contestable contextual feedback versus directive automated prompts.	Perceived decision ownership; comprehension; reversals; deliberation time.
H3: Embodied integration adds relevance	Single data stream versus combined physiological, environmental, and self-reported context.	Out-of-sample prediction; subjective relevance; subgroup calibration.
H4: Revisability protects continuity	Versioned interpretations versus immutable algorithmic labels.	Correction success; stability of self-understanding; longitudinal error.
H5: Selective routing reduces burden	Tiered routing versus maximal model processing for every event.	Compute/energy usage; latency; decision quality; privacy exposure.
H6: Stewardship limits overreach	Revocable role-scoped delegation versus opaque default authorization.	Unauthorized use; consent fidelity; appeal and remediation outcomes.

  A boundary study can compare person-alone, model-alone, and coupled human–model workflows across memory, interpretation, consistency, correction, and observable agency outcomes. These comparisons can reveal functional trade-offs, but success on a task, convincing behavior, self-reports generated by AI, or higher predictive performance do not on their own demonstrate phenomenal machine experience. Negative findings should be reported as carefully as positive ones. The relevance of these indicators to consciousness requires argument independent of their practical value.

15. Governance: the authority boundary

The risk of digital representation is not simply surveillance. It is the possibility that inferred descriptions gradually become operational mandates governing access to care, insurance, employment, opportunity, and civic participation. A person may be excluded or constrained by a mistaken model even when the model itself has no experience. Responsible deployment therefore requires legitimate authority, purpose limitation, secure transmission, human-readable uncertainty, meaningful recourse, discrimination testing, role-scoped access, and a real ability to say no. Consultation with affected individuals should occur before deployment and continue through evaluation and revision. There are two asymmetric moral risks in machine consciousness debates: incorrectly attributing agency or experience to persuasive simulation, and prematurely denying moral relevance if future systems display stronger evidence of experience. The present program cannot settle either concern. It can insist on transparency, restraint, and responsible attribution. Machine fluency is not informed consent, computational prediction is not permission, and a model’s representations are not human identity.

16. Applied translation across Demosophic initiatives

Domain	Working implication	What must still be demonstrated
89 Seconds	Better contextual awareness at consequential choice points.	Whether tools improve actual decisions and sustained agency.
AIHealthSPACE / Wisely	Consent-based coherence mirrors across care lifespans.	Clinical validity, benefit, safety, equity, governability.
Global Data Utility	Discernible, selective information movement with retained provenance.	Interoperability, legitimate governance, resource efficiency.
Superintelligence	Measure responsibility and relationship quality alongside capabilities.	Scalable metrics for stewardship and system integrity.
Workforce / economic agency	Support learning and transition rather than reduce people to productivity models.	Fair and measurable effects on participation and outcomes.
Democracy in Formation / intelligent communities	Feedback, intelligible participation, and correction across institutions.	Public legitimacy, accountability, institutional resilience.

 

17. Implications for The Science of Consciousness 2026

The presented poster asks whether the digital twin can expose a meaningful boundary between functional organization and conscious experience. This paper proposes a shared comparative vocabulary for interdisciplinary conversation rather than a new single-factor consciousness test. Neuroscientists can dispute which processes are necessary for experience; philosophers can assess the ontological boundary; communications engineers can specify integrity and routing; clinicians can evaluate practical relevance; and ethicists can interrogate authority, consent, and downstream consequences. The research contribution is deliberately modest in its evidentiary claims but wide in its application: make the relationship between signal, context, memory, interpretation, authority, and action explicit enough to be studied. At the poster, the central diagram show san embodied person, a distinct digital twin, shared but governed information flows, aggregate contexts, and reversible feedback.

18. Conclusion: conscious participation and the formation of possibility

The passage from analog communications to packet networks and intelligent computation has reshaped how humanity relates across distance, memory, and time. Yet the foundational challenge remains human: information can circulate abundantly while understanding, legitimate authority, and the capacity to act wisely remain scarce. Biological systems and artificial systems share some organizational problems, but differences of substrate, development, embodiment, and experience must not be erased. The Demosophic principle of forming and informing makes the inquiry reciprocal. We are affected by what moves through us and around us; through action we change the structures that make future information and experience possible. Packetized intelligence offers a framework for investigating the movement and interpretation of distinguishable signals. Structural integrity asks what must endure, and what must be revised, for coherent life and agency across a lifespan. A digital twin is a revealing boundary case precisely because it may interpret and influence a human life without being that life. The task is not to declare a machine conscious because it imitates intelligence, nor to close the question before evidence develops. It is to build more disciplined language, more revealing comparisons, and more accountable technologies. That is where consciousness research, engineering, philosophy, human dignity, and the practical maturation of civilization can productively meet.

References and source foundations

Butlin, P., Long, R., et al. (2023). Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness. arXiv:2308.08708. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708 Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J.-P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787 Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the Orch OR theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002 McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill. Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford University Press. Raffaelle, K. M. (2020/2021). Beautiful Decomposition: The American Project. Demosophy / Strategicbongo. Author-supplied manuscript and edition information. Raffaelle, K. M. (2026). 89 Seconds: Navigating the Intelligence Age in the Moments That Matter. Strategicbongo / Demosophy. Author-supplied prerelease edition. Raffaelle, K. M. (2026). Packetized Intelligence and Structural Integrity Across Lifespans: The Digital Twin as a Boundary Case for Machine Consciousness. Accepted abstract, The Science of Consciousness 2026. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656. Sharma, A., Czégel, D., Lachmann, M., Kempes, C. P., Walker, S. I., & Cronin, L., et al. (2023). Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution. Nature, 622, 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06600-9 Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1959). The Phenomenon of Man (B. Wall, Trans.). Harper. Original French edition published 1955. Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17, 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.44 Vallée, A. (2024). Envisioning the future of personalized medicine: Role and realities of digital twins. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/50204 Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press.