What makes a person, anyway?

[stealthdragon.livejournal.com]

Really. The going definition seems to be the same as for 'obscenity' - "I know it when I see it."

But, humans seem to have a startlingly poor track record for determining the personhood of another being. Particularly those who are unusual or somehow 'beyond the pale' for the society of the person doing the deciding. (Ever notice how people who can't talk are just assumed to not think, too?)

So. How do you define a person? And how much of that definition is possible to measure externally?

- Kathru


(Also: Thanks to those of you who responded to my last post; I haven't been able to articulate individual replies.)

Comments

[ex-memepr0g.livejournal.com]

I consider a person to be any sentient individual who is aware of zir existence as a separate entity from any other individual, whether they exist subjectively or objectively. If we were to discover intelligent life on another planet and they had that capability, then we would consider them people. I think that the definition of person, from an external sense, has some reliability, but it is not applicable to multiples or medians.

[stealthdragon.livejournal.com]

See, there's the catch. Chimps & dolphins recognise themselves in the mirror, are capable of learning languages (though finding a way that dolphins can communicate back is posing a bit of a challenge), and arguably have cultures, yet they're still "animals". As for medians & multiples, well, others have to take our word that we exist at all.

- Kat

[ameranth.livejournal.com]

Human beings are animals as well.

[everywordmeans.livejournal.com]

(Also: Thanks to those of you who responded to my last post; I haven't been able to articulate individual replies.)

-was that supposed to be a pun?!? ;)

[stealthdragon.livejournal.com]

Hmm? Er, um, hmm.. Aiee! *head explodes*

It wasn't supposed to be a pun, but you can read it that way. ;)
That paragraph was supposed to be a collective response to all of the individuals who'd commented on my/our last post. The lot of them deserve more than a blanket-statement, but none of us have been able to find words to describe the mix of thoughts & feelings surrounding the topic right now.

This is what we get for posting right after we get out of bed.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

"(Ever notice how people who can't talk are just assumed to not think, too?)"

Yes.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Well, I think definitively answering the question of "what's a person" is a little beyond my capabilities. :) That's a question on the order of "what is a soul?" or "what is right and wrong?"

However, I think the fact that this question continues to perplex philosophers, theologians and scientists just shows how flimsy the arguments of prominent "experts" like Colin Ross are, when he claims that multiplicity is merely a delusional belief in having more than one self because it's not possible to have more than one person in a body. There is no evidence on that! They can't get any evidence because no one can agree on what exactly the definition of a person, or of a personality, is; the only thing that's really known is that "personality" doesn't reside in any single definitive area in the brain, not in the way that, for instance, the immune system or sensory perceptions do.

Like you, though, I've seen attempts to justify the treatment of various people by arguing that they don't qualify as persons-- because they didn't communicate well enough, weren't intelligent enough, lacked a definitive "personality," etc. I think the "lack of personality" one is what really gets to me, because if you've admitted that you can't communicate with someone in any way that's meaningful to you, how can you interact with them enough to determine whether or not they have a personality?

I'm not just talking about humans here, fyi-- there was an article in "USA Today" a few years ago about the scientific "discovery" of the fact that animals feel emotions. (Another example of your tax dollars supporting brilliant minds at work.) The article writer got a little bit snarky and mentioned "of course, millions of people have already known this for a long time-- they're called pet owners."

"I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" is used as the standard measure of gauging a lot of things, apparently, from obscenity to insanity. The problem is that what the "experts" see is often not the same as what the lay observer sees, and the "expert's" opinion is always trusted as being more valid. People who work in institutions will be more likely to assure you that there are certain kinds of humans who have no personalities; people who experiment on animals more likely to assure you that animals have none. It seems to me that there's a lot more "seeing what you want to see" going on from the experts than from the everyday observers, but then again, they're experts, so can't be challenged.

There's a long and inglorious tradition in Western culture of people who notice certain things being pat-patted on the head and told that they're seeing something that isn't there, or "anthropomorphizing" in the case of animals. They're not the experts, after all-- if the experts say animals can't feel pain or fear, that's how it is, even if the animal in question would seem to be giving every indication otherwise. (Or babies-- it used to be routine to perform all kinds of surgery on infants with no anesthesia because conventional wisdom was that "they can't feel pain.")

I think one of the reasons people find multiplicity difficult to accept is because it's so hard to measure externally. I know some of us have talked before about how if you're too different, you get accused of being a flat caricature, and if you're too similar, you get accused of being the same person in different moods. And some people never will accept any proof as satisfactory-- they'll always insist on interpreting it in some way that makes you less than a person.


-Berke

[allusionist.livejournal.com]

Any entity that can distinguish between itself and it's environment and is capable of at least rudimentary emotions.

[arcis.livejournal.com]

here, it's largely up to the decision of the leader(s). like, if I'm not mistaken, Oz had said in the introduction, the system is very leader-centric.

that.. concerning (new) members of the system, in all. if an apparently sentient form of consciousness appear inside, he would reasses and collect data, then decide whether it would be better to acknowledge the consciousness or demolish it to the rest of the floating matter here. of course that would only work for the ones still weak, the people already strong enough would just introduce themselves and by then it's again up to the leader to assign roles, obligations and limitations to the member, in exchange of acknowledgement (whether public or private). after that, the leader would generally let the person roam free to do anything he/she would please to as long it doesn't hurt other people already here/ the body.

.. in my personal opinion, a person would have the ability to feel and decide. I realized from the beginning that being in one body, we are very limited in freedom and life choices, but I believe that, as long someone still can feel and has principles for him/herself, he/she's entitled to be a person by his/her own right.

to measure that definition externally would be difficult.. I rarely front, but when I'm allowed/ have the chance to, I try to.. well, be true of what I'm feeling and what I'm believed in. aside that probably won't get another chance, it's not like I have anything to lose :]

- Dan

[posywink.livejournal.com]

We'd rather not try to give an authoritative answer because we're not philosophers, scientists, etc. However, we use some self-made (selves-made?) criteria in our house. We consider ourselves separate people because we have viewpoints, reactions, tastes, etc., that differ significantly from those of our mastermind (MM). We're multidimensional and don't just mimic one or two of her characteristics. In order to be well-developed people, though, we must be able to surprise MM with backstories, actions, and personal characteristics that she didn't plan for. We must also be able to commandeer the driver's seat without her having to pull us up.

As for measuring our personhood externally? Hmm, we don't know how other people would do that with us ('cause no one's noticed "us" yet), but when we follow through with choices that MM wouldn't have made for herself, we consider that to be a gauge of sorts.

-- Thomas and Zoe

[cyanocitta.livejournal.com]

We're all "people". Two legs, four legs, six, eight, zero... just because humans don't speak the language of other creatures does not mean they don't have their own culture. :)

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

W0RD. *standing ovation* !!!!!

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Anything with a nervous system that gives it experiences roughly analogous to my own. :)

I grew up with two of the Golden Retriever breed of people.

[dextrosinistral.livejournal.com]

(Ever notice how people who can't talk are just assumed to not think, too?)

Yes. It's the same with the deaf, often times.


As for how to define a person... I'm not sure that I've ever really thought about it, given that I consider everyone to be a person. But I have to agree with what cyanocitta said.

[exsillium-nocte.livejournal.com]

Most of us believe there is no such thing as a person. Ultimately, everyone is the same thing, the same stuff, with the same rights (none). Conversely, I (and perhaps one or two others) believe also that everything and everyone that is alive is viewable as a person and has the same rights. Conflicting, yet both are true, depending on what scale one is using. I generally look at both scales, while most of us only look at one or the other.

Also, in terms of multiplicity, as I assume the case is meant to be here, it's also a two-scale thing. On one scale, all alters are the same person in that they all came from the same general place and are all contained within the same body and as such do not exist outside the realm of a body's mind, which in term is intangeable and as such not truly existent and completely inconsequential, even moreso than the tangeable physical form. And yet, on the other, anything/anyone with a separate perception or consciousness from another is an individual person.

In closing, I just saw elephants playing soccer...

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Yes, but couldn't you also say that personality itself, even for a single, is intangible and therefore "nonexistant" because it exists only within the mind on a non-physical level? A physical body can stay alive with no or minimal brain activity.

Also, what about people in systems who perceive themselves as walk-ins from outside the body? There have been cases of this reported for over a hundred years.


Lilac

[exsillium-nocte.livejournal.com]

Well, of course it also applies for singles. And as for them being alive without brain activity/perception/consciousness, they are -still alive-, which is one provision for still defining them as a person... I feel like I'm repeating myself.

And walk-ins are no more or nor less people than any other forms of conscious being.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

I saw a pig painting on tv a few years ago; in fact, I taped it. It was cute. It was an abstract that looked like a tree branch with two bright birds on it. It was really quite well done and I wouldn't mind hanging it in my foyer. (I wonder if the lady who owned him also owned two parrots and that was where it came from? No way to tell... but that's exactly what it looked like.)

[temps-vivant.livejournal.com]

Personal opinions in-system vary on this, but generally we err on the side of personhood than nonpersonhood.

There is one frontrunner whose religious beliefs include the idea that everything, creature or not, acquires "life" gradually over time, and that therefore a very old book can be considered "alive" in the same sense as a tree or other plant.