I will give an ambiguous answer which we can explore together.
A person is a potential of becoming a being.

Is a person a physical body? — khaled

The fruit fly on my banana is a physical body, but is not a person.

A 'person' is a legal human entity. My (deceased) father is still a person, despite the complete lack of physical body.

Well, we still say someone is the same person they were even if they lose an arm or a leg, despite now having a different physical body, so it can't be that.

OK, that seems to be your actual question: How is the identity of a person carried from one physical state to a different one. A body is different from one moment to the next, so it changes every second. What makes you now and you a second ago the same person, but the collection of matter that is me is not you from one second ago?

This seems to be entirely a function of pragmatic convention. It doesn't stand up to hard logical scrutiny, but until some really (currently) unlikely events happen, the convention works and you know how it works. You're never confused about who you were a minute ago. If a leg is severed, nobody talks about the leg having its life support system severed.

We also use "your body" often, implying that a body is possessed by the person, but is not them.

Is a person a mind? Well, we still say "your mind" very often implying that the mind is possessed by the person, and is not the person. We also say that someone is the same person even if they change their mind about something.

So it's obviously a bad idea to draw conclusions from language conventions. Same with the 'change identity' example,. which is just a reference to what's on your documents.

Is it "consciousness"? If so is an unconscious human no longer a person? That seems absurd.

Just another possession by language convention. One needs to define consciousness carefully here. Don't use the 'awake vs asleep' definition, which you did here.

A person is a potential of becoming a being. — TheMadMan

By that definition, it is murder for me (well, somebody else maybe) not to commit as many rapes as possible. Come to think of it, it isn't far from the Catholic definition.

"Person" does not have the sort of sharp and unambiguous meaning as, say, the Sun (something that we all understand the same way, at least ostensibly). Not only is it hard to nail down a universal definition, but there are genuinely ambiguous cases, as when someone is said to have become a different person. Can one change so much as to become a different person?

In my opinion, "a person" is not a matter of fact but a manner of speaking.

This seems to be entirely a function of pragmatic convention. — noAxioms

So it's obviously a bad idea to draw conclusions from language conventions. — noAxioms

But language conventions are pragmatic conventions.

So a person isn't a being?

A 'person' is a legal human entity. — noAxioms

So there were no persons before the formation of societies advanced enough to have legal definitions of persons?

No that can't be it either.

"Person" does not have the sort of sharp and unambiguous meaning as — SophistiCat

Sure, as with many things. But what about a blunt ambiguous meaning?

Firstly no, lastly yes. In the sense that a seed is not yet a tree but the potential of the tree exists in the seed.

To simplify a complex question, a 'person' is a word we use to describe a concept. Now that concept can mean different things to different people based on their background and thought process. The question is, "When we bring more people into the picture, can we find a common set of concepts that we can all agree is a person?"

That agreement of course can take an emotional level, in which case there is likely to be insoluble disagreements between different groups. It can also extend to a rational level, which concludes something that everyone "should" agree on, but may not be due to a lack of emotional satisfaction.

At the rational level I believe a person can be defined by science. At its core, people are a living minimum set of genetics. This is the reason you are a person and not a monkey. And that's really it. A person who lacks specific qualities that the majority have, but is genetically a person, is still a person. So a mute, someone born with defects, etc., is still a person.

As I mentioned before, this may not be an emotionally satisfying answer. In which case I would answer, "A person is what is emotionally satisfying to you personally, while not unduly harming yourself or others." If it works for you and gets you through your day in a beneficial manner, believe whatever you want.

But language conventions are pragmatic conventions. — SophistiCat

Totally agree. So don't draw conclusions from that convention, since it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, however functional it may be.

A 'person' is a legal human entity.
— noAxioms

So there were no people before the formation of societies advanced enough to have legal definitions of persons? — khaled

OK, poorly worded on my part. It makes it sound like lawyers define it instead of just use it. A duck knows which duckling's are hers. That's a pragmatic usage without lawyers or language. Lawyers use this pragmatic definition of identity captured in language with the word 'person' just like everything else uses the definition, using language or not. That's what I was trying to convey.

The convention doesn't always work. Take an amoeba specimen from a million years ago. Is that amoeba still alive? The convention fails here. But this qualifies as closer scrutiny, so we don't care that it fails.

To simplify a complex question, a 'person' is a word we use to describe a concept. — Philosophim

Need more detail. All words describe a concept, even if it isn't the concept being referenced, but rather the concept as a means for the reference. I say 'that rock', and I mean that actual rock, not just the concept of it.

The question is, "When we bring more people into the picture, can we find a common set of concepts that we can all agree is a person?" — Philosophim

The lawyers seem to debate this, with the side taken depending on the desired outcome. Your car accident killed two pregnant women, one a week pregnant driving the other one in labor to the hospital. How many charges of manslaughter?

At its core, people are a living minimum set of genetics. This is the reason you are a person and not a monkey. — Philosophim

OK, but the discussion was about how I am a specific person and not a different person. Also, what if we genetically modify the genome and produce something arguably not human? Does it have human rights? This speaks directly to your species definition of 'person'. At what point did we become people and not some ape? How far do we have to evolve in the future before we're no longer 'people' as defined as what humans were in the year 2000?

I would answer, "A person is what is emotionally satisfying to you personally, while not unduly harming yourself or others." — Philosophim

That's very pragmatic, yes. Agree. It brings to mind the arguments 200 years ago that black people were not people, hence being a emotionally satisfying position that justified their cruel treatment. It didn't cause harm to others since the non-humans were not 'others' any more than your cattle was.


I'm not disagreeing with your comments Phil, just thinking each one of them through, pointing out what implications I see. As I said, no attempt at a sound definition of identity (of living things or otherwise) seems to stand up to scrutiny. Physics seems to have no concept of or requirement for such things. Particle entanglement seems to be a possible exception to this.

I can't seem to find a fitting candidate. What do you all think? — khaled

Person is just a word we use to describe a range of presentations. I call my cat a person. Stupid, I know, but it's merely a word - I don't live in the crystal palace of essentialism.

A person is an indivisible whole of body and mind. Parts can be missing -- a leg, speech ability, vision, and so on. A person ceases to exist when the indivisible whole is broken -- either the brain is dead or in permanent dysfunction; or the body is dead, with the brain following immediately after.

We don't extend "personhood" to other species; this may be outdated. We know more about animal minds than we once did. A dog may be treated like a person. People talk to their dogs, the dogs listen and respond -- probably without much comprehension of word meaning, but they can perceive emotional content and body language. A smart dog has some limited language ability. They can initiate interactions. Some animals, like chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins ... seem to have more brain power, and perhaps they will be granted personhood. I think we can --we must-- respect other species without giving them "human-type personhood".

OK, but the discussion was about how I am a specific person and not a different person. — noAxioms

Two factual reasons. 1. Your genetic composition is not 100% identical with any other human being. 2. You exist in a different space then another human being. Thus "that rock over there" is the combination of the concept "rock", and "a particular rock in that spacial location".

Your car accident killed two pregnant women, one a week pregnant driving the other one in labor to the hospital. How many charges of manslaughter? — noAxioms

This would be determined by those who make the laws of the land. Who should we give authority to make the judgement? That differs from culture to culture. In general though, most cultures state that a fetus is not a person until it is born. Are they right? You be the judge.

Also, what if we genetically modify the genome and produce something arguably not human? Does it have human rights? — noAxioms

No, it is no longer human. But affording rights to only humans is something I disagree with. In modern societies we don't allow people to buy a dog and torture it for fun. The dog isn't human, but it is an abhorent act that we don't want to affect another thinking and living thing.

At what point did we become people and not some ape? — noAxioms

Rationally, we are arguably a variation of chimpanzee, and the most evolutionarily advanced form of hominid. Here is an example of a hominid that used fire as a tool. https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/like-modern-humans-homo-naledi-harnessed-fire-for-light-warmth-and-cooking/

The difference came about due to chromosome changes. If we have a person who has a new set of chromosomes that result in different behaviors that we as society deem "not human", then they will likely enter into this classification.

It brings to mind the arguments 200 years ago that black people were not people, hence being a emotionally satisfying position that justified their cruel treatment. — noAxioms

Then let me clarify. Instead of "others" being people, let it be living creatures that can suffer and die.

So at what point does that potential get realized and what's a being?

I like that answer

A person is a body, not a brain. Out in the universe, not in a prison of subjectivity. And the spirit of all things it has effected.

Then how come that I'm the same person even if 99% of the cells in my body are not the same ones as 7-10 years ago?

So at what point does that potential get realized and what's a being? — khaled

Those two are one question.

Man was an animal. As animals we were in accordance with nature, just like any animal is.
At some point that animal became self-conscious. Let me use for this the symbol of The Fall.
After The Fall man was an animal but also something more. That is evident from man's disharmony with nature.
The very thing that makes intelligent also makes us vulnerable to self deception.
One party today says that man is an animal but that is clearly not a complete answer and thus misleading.
Another party says that man is divine, but that is like a farmer trying to sell the seeds for the price of the tree.
I say that man is nothing complete in itself, not a being. So man is a potential.
That potential is realized when there is no more self deception. Man has gained clarity over oneself thus becoming not the slave of body, mind, identity but its master.
In that realization man ascends in accordance with the universe again but now no more as an animal.

This is a perennial myth that is present in all old and new wisdoms.

I don't know why you've addressed me with this question, but to be a fantasy in flux doesn't diminish the youness of you. You still don't exist exclusively in your brain. A body is a whole person, random as it may be, and one is the totality of all their forms.

There is cohesive form. And it exists out of one's mind. We are already outside of the subjective.

A 'person' is in flux until you take a measurement and interpret your results and make your judgement.
The 'person' themselves does the same thing when they ask themselves 'who am I?'
Through a purely objective lens, a person according to wiki is:
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to common worldwide general legal practice, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate, and has been questioned during the abolition of slavery and the fight for women's rights, in debates about abortion, fetal rights, and in animal rights advocacy.

Various debates have focused on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. In most societies today, postnatal humans are defined as persons. Likewise, certain legal entities such as corporations, sovereign states and other polities, or estates in probate are legally defined as persons. However, some people believe that other groups should be included; depending on the theory, the category of "person" may be taken to include or not pre-natal humans or such non-human entities as animals, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life.

There is cohesive form. — neonspectraltoast

And that form is the person? Yea that's the closes I got to an answer too.

A system of thought where animals are not a being seems to convoluted for me...

I'm afraid you have understood nothing I said, hence your reply.

One way of approaching the concept of person is to follow a thread from personality to self to person, interweaving notions of narrative (language), society, and physical individuality.

Personality:

A set of dispositions, behaviours, and impressions to which a coherent and distinguishable narrative can be attached (this is not to suggest a requirement of integrity or consistency as the notion of a scattered or incoherent personality is itself a coherent narrative, i.e. a stable and clear judgement).

Personality is not exclusively human. It can be applied to other animate beings and even inanimate objects. It presumes the aforementioned narrative, the type we use when assessing/predicting the state of others onto which we can project characteristics we note in ourselves during the process of self-awareness (in order to understand others in some relation to ourselves and therefore formulate ways to react to or control them) but it doesn’t presume self-awareness.

We can correctly talk of cats and dogs and even places or things as having personalities because we can derive from them a consistency of disposition, behaviour, and impression that equates to the same basic standard of narrative we apply to persons. A human, animal, thing or place may equally (though in different ways) be referred to as, e.g. creepy, unpredictable, and untrustworthy or bright, friendly and happy.

Self:

A self is a personality + conceptual self-awareness. That is, a narrative that continuously refreshes itself through self-observation, a self-sustaining, self-referential narrative, a story that writes itself on the basis of itself. Being a narrative, it is fundamentally linguistic (conceptual) and being linguistic it is fundamentally social. And in order to be the particular narrative we refer to as a “self”, it requires a limit so that it may relate to that which allows its expression. Its social aspect is dependent then on that limit, which is the body. So a self is a self-creating abstraction fuelled by the interaction of the linguistic layered over the social and sustained by the concrete differentiation of bodies. And analagous to words' status as meaningful abstractions being sustained by their differentiation from each other in linguistic systems, we selves are meaningful self-referential abstractions sustained by our concrete differentiation in bodies in social systems. The only selves we know of are located in human bodies.

Person:

A person is a socially named self (self-aware set of behaviours, dispositions, and impressions located in a body). Or how society refers to selves. Recognized formally/legally under the concept of personhood and informally as one of the concept “people”. Another way to put it is "person" is how society conceptualizes its social atoms of meaning, just as words are conceptualized as linguistic atoms of meaning.