imaginary friends
25.03.03 11:13 p.m.

The interconnectedness in the world results in an extremely large number of interactions each day, with an infinite number of possibilities. These interactions vary in degree from the chemical reactions when a flower goes through photosynthesis to a simple wave to a human you may encounter on a street. While these two are both interactions, they vary significantly in the category of interactions they are. These interactions lead us as humans to catalog the levels of interactions, keeping in mind both the physical interactions and the mental ones. This system stems from our personal lives.

Our everyday lives are littered with perceptions. In fact, our entire existence is based on one continuous perception. When I look at someone, I notice all aspects of their outward appearance. I take note mentally of how the person speaks, stands, along with any other sort of body language. In addition to their actions, I also take into account their appearance. After I have that entire picture, I am able to analyze it better. Perhaps attribute the folded arms as a sign of defense or unwillingness to open up. Every small thing may lead me to think something about the person, based on what I have experienced in life.

Now there is still the matter of the other person, who has her/his own perceptions. The other person will be trying to convey thoughts that are in her/his mind by transferring something that is indescribable. When a thought is initially �born� it is not necessarily defined in words. Someone may think to himself or herself about how the sky looks to be a lighter blue one-day without using those words. The combination of the senses allows that person to come to that conclusion without actually having to say it. The problem arises that when the thought is moved from that indefinable state, then words need to be attached. The gap between this consciousness of sorts and the form of expression is when perception really becomes a problem. The lighter shade of blue in the sky may be to someone else a gray shade; gray not in color, as they may both in fact see the same color, but gray in name. In order to bypass this problem, everyone would need to be completely objective, which is impossible as we are stuck in our �selves.�

From my experience, a person is more than just the thoughts that he or she thinks in words. There is an inexpressible current and stream of thought. It is this undertow that is where the disparity between the mind and body begins. It is hard to define what these currents are with only definitions of words, which are relative and are not the same for everyone.

For a human being to exist without the body (this would seem to be possible from the disparity between the mind and body) arises the matter of whether someone can exist before being born. But then the newborn should be more capable than a newborn really is. However if the self and body are to be separate and not counted as one whole �unit,� then the it appears that the self has to wait for the body and mind to mature.

Upon examination of a child�s development, one will see how the child begins to develop as a person physically, mentally, and emotionally. Before the child has begun to develop physically, the other two areas are not very mature. It seems that all three in fact grow together. As the child gains more physical abilities, its mental reach grows as it begins to learn to talk and recognize objects, people, etc.

My thoughts on the subject of what a person is, is based on the idea of development in a child. When I read and observe how a child grows, I see how the mind and the body are connected as one. I see that as child gains a greater physical reach, its mental state also begins to grow. The child�s personality begins to develop. By the time the child is two or three, you may be able to say if he/she is quiet or loud; active or inactive; likes certain types of toys and not others. There are many factors that play into this growth in the child, but overall it seems that the two (the mental/emotional and physical parts) both seem to develop together. To me, this suggests that both are connected together, rather than there being a �soul� of sorts that is the person.

The word person, according to Webster�s Dictionary, can refer to non-humans also. The criterion so far has been a level of thinking. It�s important to compare humans to animals- the two are both similar in a few ways, some more than others. Both groups have a system of communication amongst others; seem to be capable of making decisions/choices, etc. Most importantly is this interaction with other members of the species. The idea of interaction can be as simple as the body language earlier described of the arms folded across the chest. A cat may lick its kitten as a sign of affection whereas a human mother will kiss its child to show that same affection. It is not impossible to note some of these similarities between humans and animals.

The human child�s development is similar to that of many animals. Many mammals and other species portray these same patters in development. It is easy to see, especially in spring, how newborn animals grow and mature. As a bird learns to fly on its own finally, it has also learned enough to be able to live on its own. The mother will care for its foal for a few months until she is assured that it can protect itself more easily. In a wild herd of horses, the mother is not the only one that is responsible for bringing up her foal. The entire herd takes place in this process, similar to what we as children experience.

It is these observations that lead me to believe that animals of various sorts are persons too. There is a gray area with species where it is uncertain as to what level of thought they actually have. Many reptiles act out of instinct more than they do anything else. This appears to be from the fact that the females do not have to care for their children. Instead, for example, a turtle will lay her eggs and then leave. The newborn turtles will hatch sometime later and be able to live without having any sort of instruction. Their only growth is physical and do not appear to mature mentally or emotionally. However a study as to whether a newborn upon encountering a certain situation that results in a negative experience once would in the future avoid that same sort of situation again, would clarify this a little bit more. Again though, this avoidance could be attributed to the fact that it becomes a learned response rather than an actual thought out one.

The idea here is that the qualifications for a person are based mainly on the development of the young, which foreshadow the future of each individual. Meaning that, in a sense, the level of thought at the earliest stages of life determines whether someone, human or nonhuman, is a person. One of the definitions in a Webster�s dictionary will say that a person is a personality, self, or being. These characteristics are beyond the physical self. They exemplify the need for a level of thought and ability to mature in more than one way in order to be considered a person.

There are of course humans even that cannot be considered persons, just as some animals may not be considered persons either. However it is difficult to draw a line, or make a concrete definition that will clarify what is and what is not. This also comes into play with the idea of thoughts not being necessarily defined in words and the relativity of the words we as individuals might use to define them with. It is however easier to say in a very broad, general sense what is not, rather than what actually is. While it is easy to say that the criterion for a person are mainly based on the early developmental stages, things can change later on in the individual�s life.

For whatever reasons (due to an accident of sorts that may disable the person), an individual may no longer appear to be a person. Consider a human that is comatose after a car accident. Although he/she cannot move or express any sorts of thoughts to anyone else, that human may still have a high level of thought occurring in her or his own mind. Just because these thoughts are unperceivable to anyone else does not mean that they do not exist. Even in a case that does not have such a problem, no one is able to judge the level of thought of another potential person.

It is this problem of proper communication that increases the level of obscurity in actually classifying who is a person and who is not. While we may be able to create a set of rules to categorize each individual, it does not mean that we are able to actually apply them. Thus a person can be really anything in an individual�s mind since he or she can perceive each individual differently. Ultimately a person is a figment of the imagination.