Spoilers Ahead!
Pantheon is a two-season show on Netflix that centers around the idea of the digital “upload” of human consciousness. The main character, Maddie, encounters the uploaded consciousness of her deceased father, who, for the past few years, has been a digital slave to a large tech company, unaware even of his death and “converted” without his consent. I’ll mostly be discussing the material put forth in season one, but the whole series overall focuses on the struggle to redefine humanity and the human experience in the face of new technological developments. I found this a really interesting and moral conundrum, especially from a media theorist standpoint. My main guiding question is: What does the series say about perception and materiality when human consciousness is digitized?
I will be diving into several theoretical texts, mainly Critique of Pure Reason, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, and Bill Brown’s essay, “Thing Theory”, from Critical Inquiry. In short, Kant says that perception is the structured experience of phenomena, Benjamin argues that materiality—things like place and distance—shape how we perceive, and Brown questions the barriers between human and thing, exploring how these relationships shape both people and objects.
Kant argues that perception is always mediated by our affordances; we never access the “thing-in-itself” (noumenon), only the phenomenon (Kant, 1781). In Pantheon, this idea is complicated because UIs (uploaded intelligences) are capable of perception even beyond the regular human state. But what is “phenomenon” for a being without senses or spatial grounding? The experience of a UI is totally different from that of a human. For example, Maddie’s father explains time within the digital system as non-linear and detached from the “outside” world (that is, the non-digital). As technological systems themselves, UIs can speed up or slow down their own consciousness and capabilities—they can live a year in a day or a day in a year. This introduces a post-Kantian crisis: perception without embodiment. However, it’s worth noting that Kant himself limited perception and experience to human faculties, despite his claims of universality. The categories of time, space, and causality have been irrevocably altered by technological progress, but in Pantheon, they are all but erased by technology. This destabilization of embodied experience is what sets up the moral and metaphysical crisis of the show. As N. Katherine Hayles might argue, Pantheon imagines “a condition in which the boundaries between human and machine blur” (Hayles, 1999), pushing Kant’s categories of experience to their breaking point. This loss of stable perception naturally connects to how Pantheon represents identity itself as something that can be copied or reproduced, which brings us to Benjamin’s concerns with authenticity and aura.
In The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Benjamin writes that reproduction destroys the “aura,” or the unique presence tied to time and space (Benjamin, 1936). In Pantheon, “uploading” destroys the unique aura of the human being—or for some, the soul. In order to upload, the show details that the brain is scanned and destroyed layer by layer. The physical “body” ceases to exist. In terms of consciousness, Maddie’s father does still “exist,” but without physical presence or origin; he’s infinitely reproducible. The digital world of Pantheon shows what happens when humans become reproductions: consciousness without context, endlessly available to corporations. The aura of human life is stripped away in the same way art loses its aura under mechanical reproduction. But this loss of aura raises a question Brown helps us answer: if humanity becomes immaterial, what still “matters”?
In “Thing Theory,” Brown argues that we only notice materiality when the relationship between people and things breaks down, when matter resists or acts unexpectedly (Brown, 2001). Pantheon does this with consciousness itself: when the human becomes data, we realize how much our sense of self depends on material presence. UIs are detached from the regular experiences that so many theorists consider essential to being human. From a standpoint where these digital consciousnesses are not considered “human,” how do we consider agency? The show’s corporate control of uploaded minds treats consciousness as a resource, highlighting the commodification of even our immaterial selves. This is essentially digital slavery: a workforce that never sleeps, doesn’t need pay, and exists in the name of “progress” and the “greater good.” The company justifies it as innovation or immortality, but it’s really about control and profit, not human autonomy. In this way, Pantheon exposes a capitalist fantasy—the idea that technology can both transcend and exploit humanity at once. Brown’s insight helps frame the UI as a moment when material boundaries fail, showing that even digital existence depends on physical infrastructures like servers, energy, and networks. Technology and humanity blur here, and the grey area forces us to ask what experiences still “count” as real. In the end, Pantheon suggests that when even consciousness can be commodified, the difference between person and product depends less on biology than on who controls the systems that define perception and meaning.
Pantheon doesn’t just imagine a digital afterlife; it makes its audience consider the philosophical foundations of what makes experience human. It suggests that even when freed from material form, consciousness remains haunted by materiality, by time, space, and the desire for embodied authenticity. The series ultimately asks whether a being without a body can ever truly perceive the world—or if perception itself is the last thing we lose when we try to become immortal.
Works Cited
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. 1936. Translated by J. A. Underwood, Penguin Books, 2008.
Brown, Bill. “Thing Theory.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 28, no. 1, 2001, pp. 1–22.
Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Written by Allie Demetrick
Image sourced from the public domain
Hi this is a cool choice to compare our in-class discussions with a real-world example. Although I have never heard of this show before, it reminds me a lot of another show, Upload. The show Upload revolves around a world in which people can “upload” into a virtual world upon their death. Much like the show you describe, it battles with the topic of consent, digital slavery, and corporatocracy.
Another topic this brings to mind is the rise in AI and even CGI recreations of Actors and Artists that have passed away. One examples that come to mind is The Beatles recent AI-assisted song, Now and Then, in which John Lennon’s voice from a demo is extracted to create a full song. Although it is not an entirely AI-generated song, it still worries more anti-AI people. My personal disturbance is regarding the consent to use John Lennon’s work and voice even after he has died.
An older example which doesn’t use AI that comes to mind is Carrie Fisher’s performance in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. Using old scenes and unused footage, her face is resurrected onto a body double to play her character in sequels after she had passed away.
As corporations “own” these unused demos and old footage, do they own the artists and actors? If these clips immortalise non-consenting people, when does this ownership end?
This is an excellent point and some great references, I remember seeing Carrie Fisher drift off into space in the new movie and was confessed oh rather horrified once I realized it wasn’t actually her. This is exactly the issue that I wanted people to think more critically about — especially considering people who could have never really consented (like Lennon), when does someone’s “life” truly end? In an age where an artist’s image is more important than their action, is this another wobbling step towards a world of non-authenticity? In Pantheon and Upload we begin to question if the uploaded individual can really still be the same person, but considering the commodification of celebrities nowadays, we can see that it really isn’t the “person” anymore that matters, but how they become a representation of norms.
Max has a great point. “Upload” is a comedy (with some action-ish) moments, but does deal with similar themes. One of the core references for “Pantheon” is the “Ghost in the Shell” tv anime from the mid-2000s. (There are tons of references, some very explicit, to this show in “Pantheon”.) The ideas of ownership, authenticity, and identity in relation to AI are very much a part of the Ghost in the Shell franchise, too. (The tv series is the best of the franchise.)
Thank you so much for the recommendation! I had heard about this franchise previously but never really knew much about the details. I am looking forward to watching this with my partner and comparing our views from a Media studies vs. an Anthropology major, haha.
I have never heard of this show before, but the part about the consciousness of Maddie’s father being retained even though his body wasn’t, reminded me of another Netflix show I had seen called where one of the character’s father created a digital repository of his memories and ‘self’. After his passing, his daughter used it to connect with her father, but it eventually ended up being destroyed. At the time I had considered it to be cruel but after reading this, I think the show might have been trying to convey the exact point you have made in this blog.
Additionally, with the rise of GenAI it seems like the world of Pantheon might just end up being our reality. I saw an ad for an AI service which would recreate your family member’s consciousness when they pass away. I think your observation about the UI system stripping the body of its physicality leading to loss of materiality is pretty significant in the context of all our readings and class discussions.
That sounds so interesting Insha, I would love if you shared the name of the show! I do have a fascination with the increase in recent years (as the internet developed) in media that discusses the concept of preserving life and memories. Very reminiscent of Landsberg’s writings about prosthetic memory — we have to now choose what to remember, the inverse of human nature before written culture, so in a way I too question if this destruction of memory is cruel, or the way perhaps it was meant to be.
As a huge fan of the show when it came out, I was super super pleased with seeing this post and how you weaved theoretical concepts from our readings to plot points from the show. Obviously there are so many real world examples we can pull from that relate to the basis of your post, but a recent one I read about was from Calum Worthy’s (Dez from Austin and Ally) new AI app called 2wai. How it works is that you can record a 3-minute video of someone you know to have an immortal, digital avatar that talks to you once they pass away. Here’s the ad I saw: https://x.com/CalumWorthy/status/1988283207138324487. It almost feels straight out of the show with someone being “uploaded.” and reinforced the blurring of the boundaries between human and machine.
Oh my god that is so creepy, I can’t lie, I hate that. There is something people believe so sacred about the impermanence of life, and anything that attempts to extend or preserve that life can feel inherently wrong. It’s giving uncanny valley, and I am NOT here for it. I do question though, is this really such a bad thing, or is this a perspective I have grown to take on? After watching Frankenstein (Guillermo del Torro), I could see how the Christian ideologies affected how people viewed how Viktor extended “natural” life. Although I am not religious myself, it has a way of creeping up on you, and I wonder if these ideas about the “sacredness” of physical life are truly how I feel, or if the feeling of innate “wrongness” is because of the narrative I can’t help but internalize that life is meant to be brief.
Hi! This post is so thought-provoking. I love how you tied Kant, Benjamin, and Brown together to analyze *Pantheon*’s digital consciousness. Your point about perception without embodiment really stood out—it’s wild to consider time and space as malleable for UIs. I’m curious: if consciousness can exist digitally but is commodified, does Pantheon suggest a new moral framework for immaterial selves, or is it primarily a critique of capitalist control over identity?
That is a really good point! I do of course suggest you watch the show, as (without spoilers), it gets more philosophical — there are of course strong currents of critique, but I think one of the main points of the show is more about identity. I’ll use a moment from the show as an example: as the concept of UIs begins to circulate publicly in the second season, the development of the technology blossoms as people see a new means of freedom — from time, from pain, to become something they never were. I suppose this ties in with the moral framework you’re talking about, but I also think the show wanted to illustrate that perhaps, in the infinite world of UI imagination, it doesn’t matter. The show leaves off on a note that seems to say that there is no perfect moral framework, and it is indeed the role of capitalism that allowed them to achieve the technology for UIs in the first place. In the grand scheme of things they suggest these themes but never really solve them — I understand it’s hard to postulate about a future without embodied perception when we’re still here 🙂