What defines a person?

[Select Few]

This is something that's been on my mind for awhile, and yet everyone I ask answers with some variations of "I dunno, LOL."

In your mind, what makes a person a person, and not just a walking watersock?

I understand that it's subjective. That's why I want to hear what other people think.

Be as specific as you can, please. I want to know what single trait makes you think of something as a person or not, if available. If more than one thing, then list as many as you can.

Side note: I think this would fall under "Philosophy", but I didn't see that as a prefix option. Oh well.

[Kerbface]

Well technically it's our DNA and physical makeup I suppose. Though maybe you would only count it if the person had some sort of consciousness and the tiniest bit of sentience. But then again, that would mean people in a vegatative state and with perhaps some sort of severe mental disorder would not count but we still would count them, yeah I guess it's just the body.

[Karriz]

If we were able to reverse engineer the brain and put someone's consciousness into a computer or another body, I think it'd still count as a "person". So it's not tied to the body. Instead it's the collection of memories and brain processes, which just happen to be in the form of brain cells.

And if you create two copies of the same person, both copies would have the exact same memories of the time before the copying. They would just grow as different people from that point onwards.

[Kialar]

I think a person is defined by

a) self awareness

empathy

c) ability for structured communication

Regarding intelligent beings, I like the definitions in the Ender's Games series by Orson Scott Card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepts_in_the_Ender%27s_Game_series#Hierarchy_of_Foreignness

[nhnifong]

I tend to "personify" pretty much anything with eyes, or anything that makes decisions, or moves. So, to me it's a fairly loose definition. I'd hazard a guess that there's a special part of our brains, that is specialized for personifying. And anything we can fit in that mold is a person. That's why we identify with people in fiction, and why kids care about their teddy bear or Pokemon. Personification is just a special kind of metaphor, and the metaphor boils down to "is that percept like me?" I assume I'm a person naturally, and anything I can metaphorically compare to myself is a person.

[drakesdoom]

In your mind, what makes a person a person, and not just a walking watersock?

I understand that it's subjective. That's why I want to hear what other people think.

Be as specific as you can, please. I want to know what single trait makes you think of something as a person or not, if available. If more than one thing, then list as many as you can.

I find this question to be prejudiced. The proper term is meatsack and that is all you are. People have no intrinsic value just for the noble act of being alive, we only maintain a value based on what we can do.

[Rune]

Well, it's a loose term without a scientific definition. Basically, it's a bad way of classing things according to the empathy they produce, so it's wildly variable, culture-dependent, and completely arbitrary IMO. Some people empathize with animals and inert objects, some other don't see some members of their species that way (i.e:racism). In war, soldiers are taught to de-personalise the "enemy" so they stop considering them as people. So you could say the only thing that defines a person is the opinion of another, or the consensus of several. Which is a pretty awful way to define something, I must say.

Rune. So it's all very subjective, arbitrary, an unscientific... very human, I guess.

[Rune]

I find this question to be prejudiced. The proper term is meatsack and that is all you are. People have no intrinsic value just for the noble act of being alive, we only maintain a value based on what we can do.

...aaand that's a very sociopathic way of seeing things most of humanity disagrees with. Logical, too, but we would already be extinct if we all thought that way.

[nhnifong]

If you would like to read a variety of very interesting takes on this issue, I suggest I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter.

My own take on it, more specifically and less hand-wavey this time:

Humans have a special blend of qualities in their brains that leads to a accelerating level of control.

It is the combination of having a very large neocortex, which serves as a hierarchical associative memory.

A dedicated section of the neocortex which learns correlations between the subset of percepts considered to be communicative, and the set of all percepts (language)

A dopaminergic response to surprise which encourages experimentation.

together these set off a chain reaction of exponentially growing amounts of knowledge/power which is mostly shared among the whole population. Since humans are the first species to have achieved this combo, we're currently the kings of the earth.

what makes a person? this type of learning process, embedded in a body, embedded in a community of like-minded people.

[drakesdoom]

...aaand that's a very sociopathic way of seeing things most of humanity disagrees with. Logical, too, but we would already be extinct if we all thought that way.

Please define sociopathic in a way that is not arbitrary. In the classical sense I am very anti-social in that I place no value in social interaction in and of itself. However I still seek social interaction when there is a benefit to me and attempt to provide a benefit to the others involved to promote their continued involvement, for example logical discourse leading to a better understanding of reality. There are other facets to what is generally referred to as sociopathy and most of them do not apply to me.

Also I would refute your assumption that this view point would lead to extinction if widely accepted but that would break the burden of proof that lies on you to substantiate your claim.

[Xellith]

If we were able to reverse engineer the brain and put someone's consciousness into a computer or another body, I think it'd still count as a "person". So it's not tied to the body. Instead it's the collection of memories and brain processes, which just happen to be in the form of brain cells.

And if you create two copies of the same person, both copies would have the exact same memories of the time before the copying. They would just grow as different people from that point onwards.

The problem with uploading a mind to a computer is the fact that the computer wont actually have the chemical makeup and will in fact just emulate it if anything. This means that transfering your mind to a computer would actually "kill" you (if death was a requirement of uploading) and the computer version of you while it may think its you, have all your memories and whatnot, it wont actually be "you". From the moment its uploaded it will look at the world differently since it wouldnt be chemically based. But as you said they would grow differently as people.

(this is why I lolled at the control ending to ME3 and how some people said "well as the shepalyst I would do X". Lol.. no you wouldnt. You died bro)

A person is the memories and chemistry of the brain which will shape who you are and what you become. Uploading that to a computer would end your life and yet at the same time give you a new life as a second person. (or something)

[Rune]

Please define sociopathic in a way that is not arbitrary. In the classical sense I am very anti-social in that I place no value in social interaction in and of itself. However I still seek social interaction when there is a benefit to me and attempt to provide a benefit to the others involved to promote their continued involvement, for example logical discourse leading to a better understanding of reality. There are other facets to what is generally referred to as sociopathy and most of them do not apply to me.

Also I would refute your assumption that this view point would lead to extinction if widely accepted but that would break the burden of proof that lies on you to substantiate your claim.

Sociopathic as in lacking empathy to a pathological point, empathy as in empathy, which is an evolution trait that makes us a bit crazy individually (being completely selfish would be the logical thing to do), but viable as a species, because we feel each other's feelings as our own under some conditions. It also inspires and defines most of our culture, from works of art and social conventions to Hollywood blockbusters where the hero usually does a lot of stupid stuff. But if you want to pick a fight to explain further why what you think is best, go on ahead.

Rune. Oh, and nhnifong, sounds good, I'll give it a try if I remember when I finish the current book.

[karolus10]

"Cogito ergo sum" -I think, therefore I am.

Being an person is mostly about self-awareness of your existence and perceiving yourself as individual.

This definition can be also expanded into other sentient entities...

This is a bit hard issue, because mostly people not include any non-human creatures (whales, elephants, some primates etc.) but recognize all human beings as an person no matter his an fetus, newborn infant or human with not functioning brain.

[satcharna]

Genetics and environment. Genetics give you a certain predisposition toward certain attributes, and your environment defines you more specifically.

[falofonos]

Not sure of the short story this is from but it was about some aliens capturing and imprisoning some humans without trying to communicate with them until the humans constructed a cage to hold some small animal they were sharing their captivity with.

So being a person means keeping other life forms in captivity for no good reason.

[WestAir]

At what point would a computer be a person?

If you "uploaded" someones brain into a computer, and their entire neural network was perfectly simulated and maintained within that computer - and that simulation for all intents and purposes was the person whose brain was uploaded, would they be a person? When you share hilarious jokes, stories, see the uploaded mind cry and create bonds and friendships - is it a person, or just a computer?

If you establish everything that doesn't qualify one as a person, you're left with what does.

[satcharna]

In my opinion, that computer would not be the person, but a simulation of the person. It's an interesting thought, though.

[The Jedi Master]

2)empathy

People with Asbergers, Autism, etc. are not good with empathy. Does this mean they aren't people?

In my opinion, a person is defined as a self aware, intelligent entity that can create new ideas and communicate.

[drakesdoom]

Sociopathic as in lacking empathy to a pathological point, empathy as in empathy, which is an evolution trait that makes us a bit crazy individually (being completely selfish would be the logical thing to do), but viable as a species, because we feel each other's feelings as our own under some conditions. It also inspires and defines most of our culture, from works of art and social conventions to Hollywood blockbusters where the hero usually does a lot of stupid stuff. But if you want to pick a fight to explain further why what you think is best, go on ahead.

Your claim is that I lack empathy to a level that is disease? That is a very far reaching claim to make of someone, what evidence do you have that I lack empathy? Claiming that complete selfishness is a logical course of action is short sited at best. The purpose of life is life, without the continuation of the species life is pointless. Actions that lead to the continuation of the species are valuable, sometimes that is making babies, sometimes it is designing a fusion torch rocket to colonize new areas. Having empathy does not display itself in the same way every time, I would claim that the Spartans at battle of Thermopylae were very empathic as they chose to block the pass with their lives if necessary to give Greece the time to come together to resist the invading army. I do not lack empathy, I just employ it logically, I assist those that have shown they are capable of helping themselves. If someone is a layabout and asks for a handout tough luck, if they have worked hard and hit a bad streak I will and have helped them.

[hugix]

A person is a very hard concept to define. It took "us" a very long time before we realised the original inhabitants of Australia where persons and not pets.

[Kialar]

People with Asbergers, Autism, etc. are not good with empathy. Does this mean they aren't people?

In my opinion, a person is defined as a self aware, intelligent entity that can create new ideas and communicate.

OK. Now we heading into a field wich people tend to asume discrimination in sentences, which try to describe an analytical point of view.

A human within normal parameters is empathic, may it be positiv (e.g. altruism) or negtiv (e.g. greed for power).

A human with a defect like autism, asperger, or a brain injury from a accident still has the potential to be empathic, but can not utilitize it, because of the defect. That does not make this human a non-person.

A member hypotetical alien species, which may solve problems like space travel, may communicate (what is mandatory in complex achievements like space travel) but is unable to be empathic by means of normal parameters of that species would not be considered a person from me. It would be a kind of organical computer, intelligent but unwise.

Taking this to terrestrial species, I would go so far as defining anthropoid apes, dolphins and whales at least on the edge of being persons.

[Mihara]

What defines a person? Other people.

No, seriously, that's my answer as a sociologist: Cognitive function is the defining attribute of a 'person' even legally in most cultures on Earth, which is the only thing we have to go by, death is defined by 'brain death'. The only adequate method we have for defining cognitive function and intelligence, flawed as that criterion is, (for example, existing software can fool you for a few minutes, but that doesn't mean it 'passes', does it?) is the Turing Test, even for cultures we only imagine. (Tolkien's elves called themselves 'quendi', 'those who talk' because no other object in their universe did at the time.) It can only be considered intelligent if it can possibly be communicated with.

Since it is impossible to perform such a test without another object defined as intelligent in the universe, a singular 'person' is a type II nonexistent entity. (That is, it's definition can be reduced to a logical loop - "A is A".)

Once a 'person' is capable of meaningful communication, it's cognitive ability can be inferred, and every other possible aspect of personhood can be derived -- very little, if anything, actually interests 'people' if it is not 'other people', nor 'self', nor can be thought of in relation to either. (Stars? You go there to find other people -- or at the very least, to brag about it to the other people.) Notice, however, that this has nothing to do at all with being 'human', which is a potentially far narrower selection, and, by itself, has no bearing whatsoever on ethics.

[Hyomoto]

I agree with Mihara on some points here.

The only thing which can define a person is the observer, and as ourselves we are a selfish observer. That is to say, you have an intrinsic bias towards your own implicit state. Given that existence appears to indeed be a state dictated by systems which can be understood; any estimation of your physical body as a representation of your person however, is wildly hypothetical. The body is in a constant state of replacing itself, you are no more a person you were ten years ago than the person you were yesterday. The neurons supposedly responsible for a decision today may be gone before a verdict is made. Are your memories reliable or the byproduct of cellular replacement? The problem with being a selfish observer is there is no second state from which to contrast. It is little more than acceptance. I think, therefore I am. The definition of a person then, is merely a accepted consensus of general patterning, as really, that's the portion of it that tends to appeal to other observers.

To ask, "What is a person?" Is just a different version of "Why am I here?" or "What is the meaning of life?" Both which reveal the same answer; dictation by the observer. Consensual observation is what dictates the entirety of your existence. If you believe everything is well and fine, everything is well and fine because that is what you perceive to be true. Our reluctance for change is a prime example, we prefer ordered similarity to chaotic change. If change must happen, we prefer it in measured doses rather than sweeping adjustments. Therefore, a person is what you see when you see a person. This has proven useful to manipulate; typically a lack of perceived similarity between an aggressor and their victims is characteristic. We are more likely to incite violence and aggression against something we perceive as different from ourselves. We are people, they are things. Etc...

[lobsterbark]

It has to do with a certain part of our dna. I don't know the specifics, but it has something to do with a part that has to do with the way cells use chemicals for energy. If you want the purely scientific definition.

[rkman]

Your claim is that I lack empathy to a level that is disease?

I don't think so.

You are the one equating being un-social ('anti-social'/avoiding social contact) to sociopathy.