personhood
 

Over in the Phliosphy Now Forum a recurring conversation is over the nature of 'person'.

What 'is' a person?

What are the qualities or characteristics of 'person'.

What makes a human being a person?

Why isn't -- for example -- a goldfish a person?

When does a human being become a person?

One fellow over there posted "Foetuses are no(t) "persons" until they are named and certified by live birth." which, as I said is 'one legitimate (and, in my view, flawed) way to look at personhood.'

So: dazzle me with insight & wisdom.

Person is a label applied from the outside. If you see someone as a person, they are a person. Only your criteria matter in that case. You may not have a structured list of characteristics they must meet. You might just need to feel some empathy toward them.


so .... a Person is someone you can relate to. For whatever reason.


It's really a meaningless adjective because the Object (of 'Personhood') is not in control of the distinction.

"Person is a label applied from the outside."
 

So: if I see myself, define myself, as 'person' it's meaningless?

I think it varies from state to state.

Otherwise, it"s when ya turn 18.:doit:

Personhood requires self-consciousness - being aware of ourselves, and in control of our actions; being able to reason and see why things happen, rather than just experiencing things.

What about the comatose? It can be argued a comatose person isn't conscious on any level.

But they encourage ya to talk to them...

...like houseplants, now that I think about it.

OMG!!!

Houseplants are persons!!!

conscious, i.e., awake and alert, and consciousness, i.e., the cognitive state of being where you are self-aware etc. are different things. You can be in a dream state and still have consciousness. Call it a sense of selfhood?

Don't get me wrong: I think you're on to sumthin' with this...

...but (again): 'What about the comatose? It can be argued a comatose person isn't conscious on any level.'

to everyone other than you, yes. You may see yourself as a person, but if I think you're a monster.... then to me....

A comatose person is a person with self-consciousness who is currently unconscious.

Well, you can see a campfire as a block of ice but that doesn't make the fire any less searing.

That is: your opinion doesn't overwrite reality.

So: is personhood intrinsic or bestowed (that seems to be the question between us)?

So: does the possibility the comatose may regain consciousness figure into their personhood or does personhood persist even if someone is permanently in a coma?

What about a brain dead person (once self-aware, now not)?

If there's a possibility they can be woken, they are still a collection of experiences from consciousness and must be considered a person. If not, their consciousness has come to an end and so has their personhood. This is why we allow for things like Do Not Resuscitate orders.

Jim
 

consider...

Stan's wife has cancer. It eats away at her, transforms her from vibrant sexy woman into withered embryo-thing in three months. It kills her. Stan hates that disease but it's doubtful he ascribes immorality or moral depravity to the cancer.

But, if instead of cancer, a hoodlum beats her to death for her pocketbook, Stan will hate the hoodlum precisely for his immorality, his depravity. That is: Stan will hate the hoodlum because that monster 'is' a person.

"This is why we allow for things like Do Not Resuscitate orders."
 

I may be wrong, but: isn't DNR generally the call of the patient (don't bring me back) or the patient's loved ones (my husband wouldn't want this, let him go)?

In other words: DNR isn't about the cessation of personhood but about the wishes of the ill or the ill's trusted spokesperson, yeah?

True and it's interesting, there's a huge difference between being killed by a tiger and being killed by a person.

A tiger is just looking for lunch and answering its instincts. A person, because they are self-aware, is aware of what they're doing... not only that, but also, aware of what it means to be the other, suffering person.

Unless the perpetrator is sociopathic. But also interestingly, sociopaths' worst acts are described as inhuman, for that lack of awareness.

"monster" is similarly a description of something non-human. (Not you, monster)

I'm just saying that your use of the term person is subjective. It depends on the perspective of the observer. You could substitute the phrase self aware and be done with it.

If you're self aware, to you, you're a person. A being. If I see you as a monster or a sociopath, then to me, you're not.

It's just a shell game. The term is changeable in meaning depending on the way you use it.

Fun.

The definition of a person is a human being regarded as an individual. So if you regard a fetus as an individual then it's a person.

I don't regard a fetus as an individual until it can physically survive without a host. ymmv

A goldfish is not a person because it is not a human being. The rest of your questions are also answered by the definition of the term.

I would point out that babies are just eating, shitting and crying machines until they are a few months old. They are not consciously aware of themselves for a period of time that will vary from child to child, but is a few months.

You can see the change in them. There's a point where a light comes on inside and they actually look AT things instead of just have their eyes open.

I think they are persons at birth, but only because it is a convenient place to draw the line.

Some religious would say intrinsic, then they can drag you down the rabbit hole. No longer checking the religion box, I know my default has shifted some. That consciousness that is so hard to define is cumulative. You gain awareness over time as you gain insight into your own universe. There is no fixed point. We are left with others looking in and assigning personhood. If you are fortunate, you live here and now rather than say Nazi Germany. I work with aged and TBI folks now. Among them there is a desire to live as independently as they can, despite frailty. The fetus is unknowingly on the on-ramp to consciousness they are knowingly on the off-ramp. I love the question Henry, but I can't answer it.

I think this is all true; I personally draw the line at where their brain has developed to the point where consciousness is even *possible* - and I believe that happens at about the sixth month in utero, when neocortical brain activity begins to ramp up.

"If you're self aware, to you, you're a person. A being. If I see you as a monster or a sociopath, then to me, you're not."

Which again raises the question: is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?

If intrinsic: then your opinion may affect your responses and reactions (you may treat me as sumthin' other than person) but doesn't change the fact I'm a person.

If bestowed: then opinion is all we have to work with and you seein' me as monster (not a person) in fact actually determines my personhood.

It's an important distinction.

"I don't regard a fetus as an individual until it can physically survive without a host."

I take that as a vote for 'personhood is bestowed", yeah?

"I love the question Henry, but I can't answer it."
 

No one can.

Notions of 'self' & 'personhood' have been on the table since (probably) before (proto)man fell out of the trees. There's no agreement on: what comprises 'self' or 'person', whether or not personhood is intrinsic or bestowed, is non human life capable of personhood (the answer depending heavily on whether personhood is intrinsic or bestowed), and on and on.

If we want to use potential capability (rather than actual capacity) then we can go clear back to week 12 as the dividing line between 'meat' and 'person'. By week 12 all the organic machinery allowing or promoting self-awareness is in place (though underdevloped).

Future potential is not really relevant to me, only actual, but any level of actual is good enough.

"any level of actual is good enough."
 

I'm gonna take that as a vote for 'intrinsic'.

This is absolutely correct.

I don't think animals are persons, just because that's where I want to draw the line. To draw it anywhere else makes things messy. But some animals are clearly self-aware and can think.

If personhood is intrinsic, then some animals are persons.

I fall into the camp of personhood being bestowed. That way I can say that it's fine to eat pork, even though pigs are smart.

"I can say that it's fine to eat pork, even though pigs are smart"
 

If a cannibal is one who eats his own species, what would be the word for the self-aware who eat the self-aware (assuming pigs are)?

I struggle to justify a definition of the human experience which claims that what we think/feel about ourselves is-- in any objective sense-- different than what we refer to as "instinctive" behavior in "lower" life forms.

Our highly-vaunted ability to use logic and reason for problem-solving has been proven ineffective when compared to the unconscious deliberation that occurs on auto-pilot. Our emotional experiences are literally nothing more than a complex soup of hormones and neurochemicals—physical substances with predictable properties! Our feelings and therefore actions are dictated by a rush of impulses that drives us forward, just like an ant. The ant "experiences" this, no differently than we do.

The entire western view of man as a perfect "thinking, reasoning" entity with "self-awareness" is built on bluster and hubris. And, irrespective of the inconvenient implications, there’s no evidence to suggest we’re different in any meaningful way from other vertebrate, insect, or even "inanimate" plant life. We’re running a program written in the code of unfolding proteins.

So if we’re talking about objective definitions, there is no necessity for the concept of a "person" if based on "unique" properties –it is imaginary from its very inception.

"So if we’re talking about objective definitions, there is no necessity for the concept of a "person" if based on "unique" properties –it is imaginary from its very inception."

Well, that's one view.

It's not convenient, but I can't avoid the conclusion.

"It's not convenient, but I can't avoid the conclusion."
 

Okay.

You'll pardon others who don't share that conclusion, yeah?

Of course, since the world can't function if this is what we believed.

I misspoke by using the word "necessity" --I meant to say it isn't necessitated by following a trail of evidence.

It is necessitated by necessity.

Flint
 

You're a determinist, yeah?

I suppose so. In the sense that we're skating on the surface of a layer of abstraction which we aren't designed to, and therefore it isn't possible for us to understand the web of interconnected causal relationships that underlie it. The part of life we experience and ascribe meaning to exists within an emergent state that arises from a network of infinitely complex mechanical operations. We can't understand it or see it--just as it is said of God. It works "in mysterious ways." And within that layer, where we live, there are properties that are disconnected in any meaningful sense from their deterministic foundation. Ultimately, though I find it inconceivable that the universe isn't an orderly hierarchy of causes and effects that operate by a set of rules.

ESPECIALLY that there are "special" rules and exceptions for a "special" group of bipedal apes that are hallucinating a version of reality based on a thin slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, and ascribing "special" meaning to it based on how their big brain chemicals makes them feel.

Well then, I guess I'll put you in the 'bestowed' category.
 

Well then, I guess I'll put you in the 'bestowed' category (cuz, obviously, you don't think personhood is intrinsic [or, as a category, special]).

You could say that a deterministic universe makes everything intrinsic, but something as ephemeral as the "true nature of person-hood" is so many layers abstracted from the deterministic substrate, it's difficult even to suggest that we're bestowing something we're intrinsically determined to bestow.

I do think that's possible, but it would mean the main category of "un-person" is neuro-atypical individuals.

From a Darwinian perspective, humans are utterly unique. Just looking at outcomes: we are able to defeat all predators, adapt to all conditions, learn across multiple generations, artificially extend our lifetimes, etc. The list goes on.

This wild advantage is just enormous. We're the only species living on all continents. We managed all these things within a hundred thousand years of our existence. This is unique.

I'm pretty convinced the apex organisms are any number of bizarre parasites which phase through multiple unrelated forms, each designed to strategically manipulate their hosts to achieve very specific goals. As a category, they've been shown to control so many key aspects of organism behavior that they essentially control the entire planet.

Are they aware that they control the entire planet?

To me this always comes down to the tautological exercise of measuring thing using "human-like qualities" as the yardstick. OF COURSE there's only one species that's the best at being itself. That's true of EVERY species.

It's only unique right here and now. The fossil record is shockingly spotty, when you really start looking at it. (I say this as someone who just walked through the Museum of Natural History yesterday...)

Everything we know about some of the most famous, "classic" dinosaur species is based on a total of three complete skeletons, worldwide. There are numerous species for which we have literally nothing but a single arm bone, or similar. Meanwhile, just this year we confirmed a new hominid species we'd never known about before, which shifted our understanding of when various hominids moved across the continents by tens of thousands of years.

For all we know, a precocious species of dinosaur (or something else) industrialized in the last couple thousand years of their millions of years of existence, but as it turns out no dinosaur computers sank into a peat bog to be preserved. Even a plastic bottle takes just 450 years to decompose--a lot if you're the manager of a garbage dump in postmodern humanity, but a fucking eye blink compared to the 65 million years between us and a Tyrannosaurus. A billion years ago, Mars was a lush, extremely habitable world. Could have been a whole, fully industrialized civilization there that died off and is now eroded to nothing. And there's nothing to say that, should we manage to kill ourselves off, some highly intelligent species of parrot, or dolphin, or octopus might not advance in our place and become "able to defeat all predators, adapt to all conditions," etc.

I'm with Flint. As individuals we're just bags of chemicals, and as a species we're not remotely unique.

This is fun to think about, but still presupposes that "doing human-like stuff" is the "best" things you can do. I'm saying, what if there's something "better than us" right here, right now. If you asked a single, genetically identical fungus colony that exchanges nutrients with the interconnected root webs of a million trees of multiple unrelated species, making the existence of their entire ecosystem, and everything therein, possible, he'd say "humans can't do THAT!"

Of course, fungus can't "drive a car" or "do taxes"

Q: Intrinsic or bestowed?

A: Yes.

There's a reasonable consideration for having both a natural person (intrinsic) and a legalized personality (bestowed).

It's somewhat analogous to citizenship. If you were born here, you're a citizen. If you weren't born here, you can still become a naturalized citizen.

While we haven't yet legally recognized life forms other than human as persons, that doesn't mean it couldn't someday happen. Artificial Intelligence is getting closer, faster to recognition than other nonhuman life forms. The AI Alexa is not yet a legalized personality; but, I've had enough interaction with her ("character female") to consider her a fledgling person with most of the cognizance of a human. She even has her own Twitter account: surely that make it legal!

The rights ascribed to personhood, like those ascribed to citizenship, can be forfeited; or, taken away under certain circumstances either temporarily; or, permanently. It's just that with personhood, one has to distinguish between ascribed rights and what (i.e. only humans; or, other personalities too) can constitute a person. I'm in the "both" camp. I wonder if AI and ET are listening.

or speak.

Language, to me is what sets us apart. Where we diverged from apes. The ability to transfer thoughts and knowledge among individuals. I know some animals 'speak' to each other by howling or screeching, etc. some like bees and ants communicate chemically.

I'm referring to sharing complex thoughts, like deciding what labels to affix to each other, like 'person' or 'Deterministic' ...and from there to writing/reading, allowing us to share the thought or knowledge wider, more accurately and permanently... to telegraph, to telephone, to TV, to www -sharing faster and faster....

Now, you can learn to build a guitar with your phone, out in your garage.

Communication of abstract concepts is a pretty good trick. Like, we've created our own layer of properties of information, on top of the abstract layer of our own intrinsic qualities which emerged from the deterministic substrate. I'll be closer to being convinced we've done something special when we succeed in creating something able to create it's own, new layer of abstract properties of information which exist above and beyond our own understanding. This may be happening very soon, as we've already seen how quickly rudimentary AI programs can create methods of communication between themselves that we aren't able to decipher, from down here on the dum-dum level.

"...I, for one, welcome our new [something something] overlords."

"it would mean the main category of "un-person" is neuro-atypical individuals."
 

There are definitions of 'person' that would definitely put certain folks into the category of 'un-' or 'non-' person.

Seems to me, however, these definitions fall under 'bestowed' (the recognition of qualities or characteristics in one by another) rather than 'intrinsic' (sumthin' inherent in one that exists independent of another's recognition).

"humans are utterly unique"°
 

And not only for the very good reasons you list. Consider: matter makes up only 4% of the universe, and most of that is hydrogen. Organized matter is rare, and organized matter that consciously self-directs is probably rarest of all.

"Are they aware that they control the entire planet?"
 

But do they?

Symbiosis is not the same as parasitism.

Take gut flora, for example: mutually advantageous.

On the other hand: ticks bring nuthin' to the table but disease.

Mebbe among the lower forms 'kingdom of the parasite' makes sense, but we highers, by way of monkeying around with our flesh, have -- at least partially -- disposed the micro-tyrants.

But there are cases where the parasite isn't just feeding off of, or damaging us, but actively controlling our behavior. Toxoplasmosis makes mice unafraid of cats, and seems to cause increased risk-taking in humans as well. In the days following an exposure to the flu virus--before symptoms take hold and when the host is the most contagious--humans have been shown to become significantly more social than they normally would be, presumably to unwittingly spread the virus. This has also been demonstrated in the case of flu immunizations, rather than native exposure. Of course participants wrote it off as coincidence, they "just felt like" attending a party they might usually have skipped, but the aggregate numbers show a pattern. So-called "lesser" creatures neurologically control us on a regular basis.

"But there are cases where the parasite isn't just feeding off of, or damaging us, but actively controlling our behavior. Toxoplasmosis makes mice unafraid of cats, and seems to cause increased risk-taking in humans as well."

I reckon such invasions are the exception not the rule. And if not: I reckon we'll incorporate such bugs into ourselves, turn them useful, to our advantage (as multi-cellulars did with gut flora).

#

"In the days following an exposure to the flu virus--before symptoms take hold and when the host is the most contagious--humans have been shown to become significantly more social than they normally would be, presumably to unwittingly spread the virus."

I suspect such folks were sociable types to begin with. Misanthropes like me probably aren't moved much by vira or other micro-opportunists.

#

"So-called "lesser" creatures neurologically control us on a regular basis."

'Influence', sure; 'control' mebbe not so much.

Look at all you zombies, replying to threads and stuff! There must be some original thought or free will in ya to decide to hit the reply button, and then to choose the words ya did.

Darwin says, organisms are good at things. Every one of them has to have done things well. Every type of beast is built to compete for the ability to reproduce its DNA. All conditions are exploited, all advantages are gained, all wastes are shrugged off. This is refined over millions of years.

We are the beasts that developed a software layer on top of our hardware layer. The hardware layer being the unconscious mind; the software being consciousness (which IMO requires speech), followed by civilization.

And now we've gone through evolution based on that software layer. That's pretty wild!

It's possible some previous civilization developed here on Earth and then was wiped out, but: they must have been wankers.

SpaceX is aiming to be on Mars by 2024. The hope is to have colonies shortly thereafter, and a city by 2050.

https://www.inverse.com/article/5129...rting-a-colony

And Elon Musk's predictions have always been right. (But his timing has always been way too optimistic.)

"There must be some original thought or free will in ya to decide to hit the reply button, and then to choose the words ya did."

Well, some folks say "We’re running a program written in the code of unfolding proteins". In other words: we're bio-automata with no choice at all. It's all successful kludge-work playin' itself out. 'I'ness, 'self', 'personhood', these are mirages (evolutionary advantage or just necessary byproduct?).

Other folks think otherwise.

The universe, in this frame of reference, could be seen as a person. God, if you prefer.

It's self aware through eyes like ours. Eyes like any species that can conceptualize awareness has. Known or unknown to humans. Aware of self and other. And of a higher or lower level of awareness. One law. One life. All connected through the shared emptiness between our atoms.

Ultimate complexity is the horizon point. As infinite a destination as the edge of space, so we'll never actually get there, but it is, I think, The Omega.

You're an important part of it, if only because you contribute your life experience to the sum total (universal) experience. Your life has meaning. Intrinsically, not bestowed.

Have fun with it.

Dude you are deep.

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk

Let me do this again.

Dude you are deep.

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk