soul-frame/concepts/personhood.md

# Personhood

**Status:** revised (Phase IX, 2026-09-28 — P1–P12 itemized, SOUL-WP-0010-T01)  
**See also:** H2, RQ2, APE, RN-003, `research/personhood/personhood-dimensions-map.md`

## Working definition

**Personhood** is the multidimensional extent to which an entity exhibits
properties commonly associated with persons (*someone-like* qualities).

Unless qualified, Soul Frame uses personhood **descriptively** — not as moral or
legal status.

## Four kinds (do not collapse)

| Kind | Focus |
|---|---|
| **Descriptive** | Person-like capacities and structures (default) |
| **Social** | Treatment as social counterpart |
| **Moral** | Moral consideration / duties |
| **Legal** | Legal personality and rights/duties |

## Descriptive profile (P1–P12)

Itemized to the same specificity as B1–B8 (`concepts/being.md`), per
SOUL-WP-0010-T01. P1–P9 from RN-003; P10–P12 added in Phase III. Full map:
`research/personhood/personhood-dimensions-map.md`. Literature basis:
Dennett cluster conditions (SF-R093); trait and social-cognitive
personality psychology (SF-R094).

| ID | Dimension | Defining question | Anchors |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Self-model | Does it maintain a model of itself as a distinct, continuing entity? | SM2; identity; Dennett self-representation condition |
| P2 | Other-model | Does it hold differentiated models of particular others (not just user classes)? | SM3; social cognition / theory-of-mind tradition |
| P3 | Relationship model | Does it track histories and states of specific relationships? | SM5; Soul (relation) |
| P4 | Character | Does it show persistent dispositions across contexts — stable yet situation-sensitive (trait × situation, CAPS-style), not a fixed script? | Character; SF-R094 Big Five / Mischel |
| P5 | Intentional organization | Is its behavior intelligible via extended intentions and plans, beyond single-step stimulus–response? | Mind; agency; Dennett intentional-system condition (SF-R080/R093) |
| P6 | Autobiographical integration | Does it integrate past events as *its own* history? | continuity C4/C5; Schechtman characterization question |
| P7 | Perspective | Does it operate from an entity-relative informational perspective? (First-person indexicality; explicitly **not** solved phenomenal consciousness.) | RN-003; design boundary |
| P8 | Commitments | Do its present acts bind its future manifestations (promises, stances, obligations)? | normative continuity |
| P9 | Social reciprocity | Does it recursively co-adapt with others who model it (mutual modeling, not one-way output)? | H4; Social Mind; Dennett reciprocity condition |
| P10 | Communicative competence | Can it participate in shared symbol systems and maintain common ground? | language; Dennett verbal-communication condition |
| P11 | Responsibility-tracking | Can attributions of credit/blame stick to it diachronically? | identity + commitments (P1, P8) |
| P12 | Value / preference structure | Does it exhibit stable cares, preferences, and an evaluative stance? | character; intentional organization; Frankfurt second-order volitions |

Profile, not binary checklist — score per code; entities can be high on P10
and low on P4/P6 (stateless chatbot), or high on B1–B8 and low across
P1–P12 (daemon). Per-code enumeration is the prerequisite for per-code
metric scoping (`research/metrics-scoping-note.md`).

## Three axes

```text
A — Autonomous individuality
B — Descriptive personhood
C — Social recognition
```

High B without A → strong **APE**, not necessarily **Being**.  
High A without B → autonomous individual (e.g. daemon), not someone-like Being.

## Relation to Being

Personhood = qualities exhibited.  
Beinghood v0.2 = autonomy layer + sufficient personhood + addressability + recognition.

## APE

**Artificial Personhood-Exposing Entity** — constructed to expose ≥1 personhood
dimensions. Construction category, not moral/legal person claim.

## Sources

RN-003; Locke; Dennett cluster concepts; Schechtman characterization question;
Phase II recognition for social personhood; moral/legal only as boundary literature.