On 2/13/2014 1:56 PM, John McClure
Nice summary Robert. With respect to legal definition of a Person,
I suggest Entity as a supertype of Person, an Association being a
subtype thereof. In this way, the common bundle of legal rights
accorded to Associations and Persons can be delineated. Also, I
thought rigidity applies to property associations, not classes.
Since a class is defined in part by the set of properties
associable to its individuals in a rigid semirigid or unrigid
manner, it's not helpful/factual to ever characterize a *class* as
rigid or not.
Agreed, it is a nice summary. I think we
need to make the distinction between a reference to an instance
of a person and a reference to an abstract class. Perhaps this
goes back to the distinction between uses for dbases and AI. In
my view "person" is an unspecified pronoun for an unspecified
individual or person-type entity. For example, your spouse wakes
you up and says, "There's a person in the basement. What are you
going to do?" Maybe that
"preson" is a raccoon. This is why I think an info statement
about intended use is very important..
An on-the-spot summary of ways to model girl/boy,
woman/man, some of which have been stated in the thread, and
not all of which are necessarily viable:
- as a state of a person
- as temporal stages of a human being (or person)
- as temporal stages of the life of a human being
- as a property of a human being
- as roles played by a human being in some early stages of
their life. The roles are automatically realized once the
person reaches, say, a certain age or once certain biological
or psychological changes occur.
A boy/girl as a person in early stages of their life. The
boundaries of these stages can be specified by social
convention, e.g., adulthood as 17,18 in certain countries,
etc., or based on certain biophysiological or psychological
changes or markers.
Aside from that, and on this statement made: "I don't disagree
that Person is rigid, while Boy and Man are not. [Of course,
the Supreme Court can decide that various entities are Persons
or not, which means that Person is not rigid. 8)# ]"
Speaking from a philosophical perspective, IF Person (a class
that has as instances, you and me, etc.) is not rigid, it is
certainly not so because of the Supreme Court.
WRT Person being an endurant/continuant or
perdurant/occurrent, cases can be made for either.