If Elephants Aren't Persons, Could They be One Day?

Mind-body dualism with avatar seems to be a good way to look at the question of elephant personhood.

In the metaphysical model I have been testing, a person is defined as a personality entangled with a human in an avatar relationship. The avatar has evolved on earth and personality has evolved in the etheric. Both have a mechanism to develop perception and expression but it is shared during entanglement. Personality is the observer aspect and conscious self is personality's experiencer aspect.

Central to the perception and expression mechanism is worldview (judge aspect) which is like a database containing inherited behavior (instincts), inherited understanding and cultural indoctrination accumulated during entanglement. Worldview has considerable momentum, and so (usually) only changes in small increments.

The avatar has evolved to survive in its natural habitat. That means it has instincts associated with perpetuating its gene pool. That is its prime imperative. I characterize conscious self's prime imperative as the urge to acquire understanding through experience.

I found it necessary to define the principle of Perceptual Agreement as personality must be in perceptual agreement with the aspect of reality with which it will associate. We cannot experience something which we are unable to visualize. 

When the avatar is born and conscious self becomes entangled with it in an avatar relationship, conscious self's perception is not oriented to the physical experience (perceptual agreement) and it is unable to override the influence of its human instincts shared in worldview. A baby is all animal instincts. Over time, conscious self is able to exert more influence, and in maturity, the person is more influenced by Peronalisy's prime imperative.

There are moments during a lifetime, in which the avatar's instincts dominate. For instance, we characterize lust as an uncontrollable craving. People talk of a fit of rage. A capitalist might bargain away family to achieve dominance. These are gene survival responses. Self-sacrifice and a humanitarian response without expectation of reward might be characterized as the expression of conscious self's prime imperative.

We, as conscious self, do not have the necessary worldview to perceive entanglement with an elephant. The elephant is also constrained by perceptual agreement. We can extrapolate. For instance, new understanding might be gained from participating in the herd protecting its young from predators. Learning to distinguish wet from dry seasonal conditions would be both a survival tool and new understanding about cycles.

This is just a model developed to help explain Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC), but I have found it useful for understanding the difference between a conscious self-centric perspective and a body-centric perspective. The model is not specific to human animals. It should apply to all life forms. That is why I think of reality as a Source life filed as an attractor to life field fractals. In this way, reality would consist of life fields and the expression of life fields.

Sorry for getting so metaphysical.

Right to the point. Pretty much sucks doesn't it.

Not really.  Should free "people" up to do whatever they (believe) they want.  The illusion is real and there are no "consequences" at all because there is no point either metaphysically or personally.  The latter because, of course, there really are not any "persons" in the general, illusory sense of volition or choice.  Love for your child?  Illusion, pre-determined as could be proven with a strong enough super computer, and a trick of evolution to ensure procreation.  There really is nothing at the end of the day.

How inspiring.  Seems to fit our first person view of reality as well; down to the core.

I consider it a pointless question. Why should they want to be ‘a person’? More importantly, who’s to say they aren’t already the equivalent in the eyes of God?

Would the world be a better place if there were fewer elephants but more people?

Am I missing the point? 

Should have posted this before, as the etymology of a word is always useful.

Your post, Stan, prompted me to think about the whole idea a bit more. Caffeine helps, also... :|

Anyways:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/person

early 13c., from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as "related to" Latin personare "to sound through" (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice), "but the long o makes a difficulty ...." Klein and Barnhart say it is possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." Klein goes on to say this is ultimately of Greek origin and compares Persephone.

[...]

Going by the etymology, elephants becoming persons is quite meaningless.

Indeed, the idea of choosing which living beings or not are qualified to be "persons" is indeed pointless, because our designation is based on arrogant underlying assumptions of human superiority. That is, the more similar to us they are, the more we believe that this means that they are intelligent in the same sense as we are, as if humans are the standard by which all are to be measured.

I know that all living beings, animal, plant, bacterium, etc, are all intelligent and conscious, all in their unique manifestations, so the idea of a "person" as meaning "intelligent" doesn't say anything, except about how we perceive others through our biases.

Plants exhibit intelligence, but most don't realize this, because they're looking at the surface of plant behaviour.

Maybe I've posted this here, elsewhere, but my memory being like a sieve at the best of times right now, does me no favours. So, I'll post it again,

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Plant...0060915870

The Secret Life of Plants: a Fascinating Account of the Physical, Emotional, and Spiritual Relations Between Plants and Man Paperback – March 8, 1989

by Peter Tompkins (Author), Christopher Bird (Author)

In this truly revolutionary and beloved work, drawn from remarkable research, Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird cast light on the rich psychic universe of plants. Now available in a new edition, The Secret Life of Plants explores plants' response to human care and nurturing, their ability to communicate with man, plants' surprising reaction to music, their lie-detection abilities, their creative powers, and much more. Tompkins and Bird's classic book affirms the depth of humanity's relationship with nature and adds special urgency to the cause of protecting the environment that nourishes us.

Also, this post I just made is also relevant, but I don't want to paste the whole thing in this thread:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-p...-worldview

I consider it a pointless question. Why should they want to be ‘a person’? More importantly, who’s to say they aren’t already the equivalent in the eyes of God?

Would the world be a better place if there were fewer elephants but more people?

Am I missing the point? 

I think it adds weight to a growing body of research on animal, even plant, consciousness. 

For many of us who accept consciousness in many (possibly all) aspects of the world it isn't a big deal, but it can bring people closer to that way of looking at things.