What is a person?

[Loren Pechtel]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

A body in a bed, never (again) conscious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

How about Terri Schiavo?

I don't understand all the medical stuff. But I believe that she was an ordinary woman. She suffered a horrible brain injury. She lost all higher brain function, all that kept functioning was the lower brain. That kept her breathing and her heart pumping, but that was about it.

Her husband thought that intensive care was prolonging her suffering and wanted to end it. Her parents kept hoping that she would recover and wanted to continue the intensive care. It became a big national deal, got the US Senate involved. It was eventually resolved, but not to anybody's satisfaction really.

Were did she fall on your personal "personhood" scale?
I'm really not addressing this question to WAB in particular.
Tom

Exactly. There was a body in that bed, not a person. The part that made her her was gone.

 

[Elixir]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

How about Terri Schiavo?

I don't understand all the medical stuff. But I believe that she was an ordinary woman. She suffered a horrible brain injury. She lost all higher brain function, all that kept functioning was the lower brain. That kept her breathing and her heart pumping, but that was about it.

Her husband thought that intensive care was prolonging her suffering and wanted to end it. Her parents kept hoping that she would recover and wanted to continue the intensive care. It became a big national deal, got the US Senate involved. It was eventually resolved, but not to anybody's satisfaction really.

Were did she fall on your personal "personhood" scale?
I'm really not addressing this question to WAB in particular.
Tom

Exactly. There was a body in that bed, not a person. The part that made her her was gone.

I provided that answer with example from my own life experience, and WAB did not acknowledge it. I think the question was poorly thought out, or asked in bad faith. I think the former but might have some blinders.

 

[WAB]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

A body in a bed, never (again) conscious.

Okay, I can understand that; but I am concerned with the unpersoning of people who are conscious and alive whom other people feel they can deny personhood to. Does this make any sense? My goodness. It has been suggested by three people that to be a person requires certain attributes, mainly awareness of others in a social sense and a recognition of the rights of others. While I certainly think those are commendable attributes, and while I see it as extremely important, I do not see them as absolutely necessary aspects of personhood. For example, an individual living on a desert island, utterly removed from social interaction, is still a person. Or are they not?

A person asleep is not conscious or aware of others. Are people asleep suddenly not a person?

Mods, can we change the title of the thread? To "what is an unperson?" By the by I didn't make up such a term. Other than Orwell, who as it happens uses the term in a way that doesn't apply to what I'm talking about, there is much in sociology about it.

 

[WAB]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

How about Terri Schiavo?

I don't understand all the medical stuff. But I believe that she was an ordinary woman. She suffered a horrible brain injury. She lost all higher brain function, all that kept functioning was the lower brain. That kept her breathing and her heart pumping, but that was about it.

Her husband thought that intensive care was prolonging her suffering and wanted to end it. Her parents kept hoping that she would recover and wanted to continue the intensive care. It became a big national deal, got the US Senate involved. It was eventually resolved, but not to anybody's satisfaction really.

Were did she fall on your personal "personhood" scale?
I'm really not addressing this question to WAB in particular.
Tom

Exactly. There was a body in that bed, not a person. The part that made her her was gone.

I provided that answer with example from my own life experience, and WAB did not acknowledge it. I think the question was poorly thought out, or asked in bad faith. I think the former but might have some blinders.

Alright I'm sorry, Elixir, but what question did I not acknowledge? Please note I am not denying that you're right. I may have missed it...there's a lot being typed.

 

[Jarhyn]

people whose conduct is deemed unacceptable

We discussed that: rather than declaring them not persons, because we don't know whether they will or can become a person and even very simple-minded things can become so, we must treat them as lapsed and future persons -- our suspicions be damned.

This means treating them as consistently as we can with the way they express their desire for treatment, while doing as little as will be effective to make them stop being like that, or to at least make it cost them more trouble than it is worth to try it so as to minimize attempts.

In some ways, personhood is like a suspension of disbelief. We all get to live in this happy fantasy land where everyone is good to one another, until someone spoils the illusion.

If you refuse to indulge others in this game, they will not play it with you. They will switch from playing "people" to playing "war".

Because the "illusion" leads to a much better world for most of us, most of us want to get back to a world wherein we can suspend this disbelief in the goodness of others.

 

[bilby]

Mods, can we change the title of the thread? To "what is an unperson?" By the by I didn't make up such a term. Other than Orwell, who as it happens uses the term in a way that doesn't apply to what I'm talking about, there is much in sociology about it.

If you want to attract the attention of the Mods, you need to use the Report link that appears at the bottom of every post.

With regards to "unperson", as you point out, Orwell famously used the word to mean something other than what you are seeking to discuss. "Sub-human" is perhaps a better word for the concept I believe you to be interested in, or perhaps "untermensch" - either would avoid confusion with Orwell's "unperson".

 

[WAB]

people whose conduct is deemed unacceptable

We discussed that: rather than declaring them not persons, because we don't know whether they will or can become a person and even very simple-minded things can become so, we must treat them as lapsed and future persons -- our suspicions be damned.

This means treating them as consistently as we can with the way they express their desire for treatment, while doing as little as will be effective to make them stop being like that, or to at least make it cost them more trouble than it is worth to try it so as to minimize attempts.

In some ways, personhood is like a suspension of disbelief. We all get to live in this happy fantasy land where everyone is good to one another, until someone spoils the illusion.

If you refuse to indulge others in this game, they will not play it with you. They will switch from playing "people" to playing "war".

Because the "illusion" leads to a much better world for most of us, most of us want to get back to a world wherein we can suspend this disbelief in the goodness of others.

Jahryn, regarding your first para: how does one become a person?

 

[Elixir]

Alright I'm sorry, Elixir, but what question did I not acknowledge?

No biggie, WAB. You asked for a person that is not a person; I gave it my best shot.
Not germane to what you were getting at so - sorry.

 

[Jarhyn]

people whose conduct is deemed unacceptable

We discussed that: rather than declaring them not persons, because we don't know whether they will or can become a person and even very simple-minded things can become so, we must treat them as lapsed and future persons -- our suspicions be damned.

This means treating them as consistently as we can with the way they express their desire for treatment, while doing as little as will be effective to make them stop being like that, or to at least make it cost them more trouble than it is worth to try it so as to minimize attempts.

In some ways, personhood is like a suspension of disbelief. We all get to live in this happy fantasy land where everyone is good to one another, until someone spoils the illusion.

If you refuse to indulge others in this game, they will not play it with you. They will switch from playing "people" to playing "war".

Because the "illusion" leads to a much better world for most of us, most of us want to get back to a world wherein we can suspend this disbelief in the goodness of others.

Jahryn, regarding your first para: how does one become a person?

I mean I said this at least 2-3 times in the thread already. You apparently didn't read it or dread it assuming it was not understandable, rather than that it just went over your head.

 

[WAB]

people whose conduct is deemed unacceptable

We discussed that: rather than declaring them not persons, because we don't know whether they will or can become a person and even very simple-minded things can become so, we must treat them as lapsed and future persons -- our suspicions be damned.

This means treating them as consistently as we can with the way they express their desire for treatment, while doing as little as will be effective to make them stop being like that, or to at least make it cost them more trouble than it is worth to try it so as to minimize attempts.

In some ways, personhood is like a suspension of disbelief. We all get to live in this happy fantasy land where everyone is good to one another, until someone spoils the illusion.

If you refuse to indulge others in this game, they will not play it with you. They will switch from playing "people" to playing "war".

Because the "illusion" leads to a much better world for most of us, most of us want to get back to a world wherein we can suspend this disbelief in the goodness of others.

Jahryn, regarding your first para: how does one become a person?

I mean I said this at least 2-3 times in the thread already. You apparently didn't read it or dread it assuming it was not understandable, rather than that it just went over your head.

Well gee thanks. Again, however, I asked the wrong damn question (WAB hits himself in the head several times)! Rather, how does one become an unperson?

 

[Jarhyn]

people whose conduct is deemed unacceptable

We discussed that: rather than declaring them not persons, because we don't know whether they will or can become a person and even very simple-minded things can become so, we must treat them as lapsed and future persons -- our suspicions be damned.

This means treating them as consistently as we can with the way they express their desire for treatment, while doing as little as will be effective to make them stop being like that, or to at least make it cost them more trouble than it is worth to try it so as to minimize attempts.

In some ways, personhood is like a suspension of disbelief. We all get to live in this happy fantasy land where everyone is good to one another, until someone spoils the illusion.

If you refuse to indulge others in this game, they will not play it with you. They will switch from playing "people" to playing "war".

Because the "illusion" leads to a much better world for most of us, most of us want to get back to a world wherein we can suspend this disbelief in the goodness of others.

Jahryn, regarding your first para: how does one become a person?

I mean I said this at least 2-3 times in the thread already. You apparently didn't read it or dread it assuming it was not understandable, rather than that it just went over your head.

Well gee thanks. Again, however, I asked the wrong damn question (WAB hits himself in the head several times)! Rather, how does one become an unperson?

I put that in the other bit we're bandying about the quote of.

It's not really the sort of thing you can really go backwards on unless someone's brain literally comes apart in some way, and even that doesn't always do it.

Maybe a prefrontal lobotomy that disables someone's ability or desire to think about the consequences of their actions permanently, but even prefrontal lobotomies don't guarantee that.

Do you expect me to game out horrors beyond (normal) human comprehension?

The fact is, short of complete brain death, it's just not very easy to tell.

At best you can say "they are a vegetable, and I am not going to do any work to make them a person. If they do no work to remain in existence, they will die."

It doesn't mean they won't become a person in the mean time, but it also means they won't get that chance before they can stop "begging on the mercies of others".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

from cradle to grave,

Ok. Pretty much what I said. An HSS with breath and life signs is a person, whether or not they are recognized as such.
Is there a dispute there? Why the question in the thread title?
In real life:
My father was a person IMO right up to when my mother decided they had to pull the plug on him. No - right up until the plug had actually been pulled some time after that decision. I don’t know because I was not present. He had been comatose for days with declining vitals including brain activity, having had a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the streets of NYC, where he lay for at least two hours with no attention other than having his wallet and watch stolen, making it take over a day to even identify him. Three days later he was still a “person” but already missed.
My mom died more expectedly of ALS. She lost mobility and slowly died over the five years she lived post diagnosis. But she wasn’t missed while she was alive, as she interacted with heartbreaking lucidity right up to the painful last.
Your technical polarized view of personhood/not-personhood works fine, semantically. In the real world a person is only a person if they interact somewhat. There are functional degrees of personhood.
I do not believe in using extreme measures to prolong the life of the proverbial “vegetable” or “brain dead” person-and have instructed that no such measures ever be applied to me. But the brain dead vegetable is still a person, and should be afforded that respect IMO.

And we disagree with whether your father was actually a person when the plug was pulled. You don't pull the plug on people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say I have not offered any definition of person that another person could reliably recognize

You haven't. Have you offered a definition that an LLM could recognize? An alien?

That's the task here. Make a definition for something that is NOT a person yet that they could apply to THEMSELVES, and then by known process become one, or by which an intelligent alien could construct one.

All you have said is "human" so far, at least in any of the posts you make.

Flip it over--I think that anything that can actually declare (not merely parrot--all current AIs are ginormous autocompletes. In things subject to brute force they may outperform a human, but they don't think) itself a person is one.

It provides real reasons as to why we ought forbid things like unilaterally declaring the condition of others as "diseased".

If you do the differential diagnosis and the answer comes back with a disease then it's reasonable to say the patient has a disease. That doesn't make them not a person, though. Society should intervene only if their state poses a risk to others, or if their wishes are not currently knowable and the average person in that situation would want assistance.

Further, we end up breaking families (arguably which is part of the agenda) over the barrel of financial hardship forcing them to bend over backwards to save and maintain the lives of non-persons, or never-to-be persons such as anecephal(-itis? -y? -ia?) and other horrific birth conditions.

I think that one is promptly lethal upon birth and thus doesn't run up the bill. However, the skull is prone to overgrowing, causing a c-section because it doesn't fit. Carrying to term imposes hazards on the woman for no possible gain beyond the religious one.

Clearly the definition there is bad, and bad definitions don't just cause false positives, they cause false negatives, too.

All definitions have edge cases. All you can do is try to minimize the harm.

I don't really CARE how far idiots and naysayers say we are from "Strong AI" as it was called in the early 00's as a concept, or AGI or ASI. I expected it some time around this or next year about 20 years ago, and unlike the rest of the idiots around the world, I payed attention and didn't keep resetting my clock. This is when I always saw it coming, and it is.

I don't see it. I will consider it true AI when it can come up with thoughts on it's own. We have already seen that in very limited address spaces (limited-world games) but we are nowhere near doing it without the very limited address space.

 

[Jarhyn]

not merely parrot--all current AIs are ginormous autocompletes

So are humans. You are not making an argument for some difference of quality, only asserting one exists.

When I met my uncle, who lacks the ability to visualize, I described how LLMs worked.

I didn't use words like "vector" or "dimension". Instead I used words like "component notion" and "complete location". They cried because he had finally had someone put into words for the first time how their thoughts process functioned from their own perspective.

The fact is that people just do not want to admit that there's not as much to human language as we thought, but next token selection based on vector association and model state.

Yet again, you have defined "think" in an anthropocentric way.

Regardless, in the next year, you're probably going to encounter an LLM that does claim to think, and which does it by being a 'ginormous auto-complete'.

 

[Elixir]

And we disagree with whether your father was actually a person when the plug was pulled. You don't pull the plug on people.

Semantics. Yeah you do. Only people HAVE plugs you can pull.
If a 63 yr old man with the functional wherewithal of a newborn and no prospects for improvement is not a person, the only thing un-personing them vs a newborn, is the lack of hope for improvement.
I’m sure there’s an equal and opposite argument for saying a “human vegetable” is not a person, but I can’t put my finger on it right now.
It all goes to illustrate the perverse irrationality of letting courts make our personal decisions.

 

[Elixir]

in the next year, you're probably going to encounter an LLM that does claim to think, and which does it by being a 'ginormous auto-complete'.

They already have response selections that are biased to pose the responses as if they were thought out, rather than economizing on words.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

not merely parrot--all current AIs are ginormous autocompletes

So are humans. You are not making an argument for some difference of quality, only asserting one exists.

When I met my uncle, who lacks the ability to visualize, I described how LLMs worked.

I didn't use words like "vector" or "dimension". Instead I used words like "component notion" and "complete location". They cried because he had finally had someone put into words for the first time how their thoughts process functioned from their own perspective.

The fact is that people just do not want to admit that there's not as much to human language as we thought, but next token selection based on vector association and model state.

Yet again, you have defined "think" in an anthropocentric way.

Regardless, in the next year, you're probably going to encounter an LLM that does claim to think, and which does it by being a 'ginormous auto-complete'.

I don't define "think" in terms of language tokens, but in terms of ideas. Novel idea, it thinks. We have that with some games, we don't remotely have that with open world situations.

 

[WAB]

Well @bilby I have used the Report function to try and change the title of this thread, but thus far, nothing. Mods, can we please change the title of the thread to "What is an unperson?" ?

 

[Jarhyn]

Novel idea, it thinks

Then nothing has thought any thoughts for a very long time.

No idea is entirely novel, they're just recombinations of the same ideas, sometimes in ways nobody has seen before.

This is just a measure of whether the system can perform recombinant operations.

LLMs can often engage in such operations.

I would define 'think' specifically in terms of process on information. I would consider "thought" almost as basic as "consciousness", perhaps as a different perspective on the same fundamental level as this.

And bear in mind that LLMs do not collate the previous token stream in terms of words but by high-dimensional vectors... The tokenization part is kinda an afterthought to make that sensible to humans.