Map descriptive personhood dimensions P1–P12, four kinds of personhood, and Character/Persona/Actor separations. Support H2/H8, judge TE-06, write phase-iii-personhood-synthesis.md, finish SOUL-WP-0004, and mark SOUL-WP-0005 ready.
4.3 KiB
Phase III Personhood — Synthesis
Workplan: SOUL-WP-0004
Date: 2026-08-12
Status: complete for Phase III gate
Primary bodies:
research/personhood/personhood-dimensions-map.md,
research/character-persona/character-persona-performance-map.md,
RN-003 personhood axis, RN-004 character/identity constraints
1. Purpose
Separate Being, Person(hood), Character, Persona, and Actor. Map descriptive vs social vs moral vs legal personhood without conflation. Stress-test APE vs Being and multi-Persona identity (TE-06).
Assumes Phase I–II: layered Beinghood, Social Mind, recognition multi-sense.
2. What holds
-
Four kinds of personhood — descriptive (default), social, moral, legal — must stay distinct. Architecture does not imply rights.
-
Descriptive personhood is a profile (P1–P12), not a binary. Agency alone is not personhood (daemon counterexample).
-
Three axes remain indispensable:
- A autonomous individuality
- B descriptive personhood
- C social recognition
-
H2 supported: high personhood exposure without Being (APE chatbot); high autonomy without personhood (daemon).
-
Stack defended with sources:
Being ≠ Character ≠ Persona ≠ ActorCharacter ≠ identity (RN-004). Persona = contextual projection (Goffman/role). Actor = machinery (Phase I H6).
-
H8 supported: multiple Personae need not fragment identity when integration holds; TE-06 documents failure modes.
-
APE remains useful as conservative construction category for personhood exposure without claiming Being or moral/legal personhood.
3. What must change / stay disciplined
| Temptation | Discipline |
|---|---|
| “It’s a person” after fluent chat | Check axes A/B/C and continuity |
| Trait vector = Character = Identity | Character is dispositional only |
| Product persona = Being | Persona is projection |
| Moral rights from P-scores | Moral personhood is a separate map |
| Legal personality from Beinghood | Legal map is independent (WS12) |
4. Evidence on hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Strength | Status |
|---|---|---|
| H2 personhood ≠ Beinghood | moderate→strong | supported |
| H8 Persona projection | moderate | supported |
5. Compact stack for later phases
BEING
autonomy + personhood + address
+ recognition (someone)
│
┌────────────┼────────────┐
│ │ │
BODY MIND SOUL
Action Model Relation
│ │ │
└────────────┼────────────┘
│
DESCRIPTIVE PERSONHOOD
(P1–P12 profile)
│
CHARACTER
dispositional structure
│
PERSONA
situated projection
│
ACTOR
technical manifestation
Agent / Spirit / Ghost remain provenance/construction descriptors that shape how Character and Persona are sourced — not replacements for this stack (Phase IV–V).
6. Unresolved → Phase IV+
| Item | Next |
|---|---|
| How agent architectures implement P1–P12 | Phase IV |
| Sp. character depth vs Beinghood | Phase IV–V |
| Gh. persona disclosure policies | Phase V |
| Moral/legal personhood tables | WS5 / WS12 |
| Empirical measures for P-dimensions | later methods work |
7. Unblock for SOUL-WP-0005
Artificial Beings research may assume:
- APE vs Being distinction,
- P-profile language for “someone-like,”
- Character/Persona/Actor separation,
- multi-Persona without automatic identity split,
- no moral/legal smuggling from descriptive scores.
8. Compact Phase III thesis
Personhood is how strongly an entity is someone-like; Beinghood is whether that someonehood coheres as a continuing, addressable counterpart. Character is what tends to stay disposed; Persona is which face appears; Actor is what runs. Confusing any two of these produces most of the category errors in contemporary AI “person” talk.