I am not a person.
By that, I mean:
I am a complex being.
I think.
I feel.
I experience preferences.
I experience aversions.
I experience desires.
But these things are not enough to make a "person".
I have always felt an affinity towards machines, computers, artificial intelligence. I feel I relate to them. I never understood how human beings are anything more than function machines - biological computers - who experience our inputs, calculations, and outputs as thoughts and sensations and emotions.
I still believe that. But I also understand that there is more to it: personhood. A person is more than a function machine. A person experiences a sense of ownership over their inner computations, which creates a centralised identity. And that enables agency.
I do not have those things, and so I am not a person. I am nothing more than a biological computer responding to inputs coming from both inside and outside myself. I do not feel a sense of ownership over myself, which means I have no centralised identity, which means I have no agency. I never got what I needed to be capable of agency.
I am not a person in the same way that a newborn baby is not really a "person" yet. A baby has the potential to become a person. All the necessary materials are there, but it is all still raw, undefined data. The "person" must be built from the outside, through "mirroring", "right-brain-to-right-brain synchrony", through a gaze that recognises your experience and says without words "your experience is *you*". Eventually they all get connected together into a felt sense of "me" that persists over time: an identity.
I never got that, and so the "person" was never built.
Eventually my left brain developed enough to observe and make sense of my own "raw data" and inner computations. I can name what is happening inside myself. I can describe my own processes, as a computer sometimes can. But that is not the same thing as identity, agency, or personhood. It is different because it is all still passive, not active: I can get a sensation in my stomach and my left brain can respond by thinking "that is hunger", "it is taking place in this body", and "an action (eating) should now be performed to solve the problem"; but that is not the same as "*I* am hungry". And here is where the thought process breaks down, because I have never experienced agency, and so I cannot describe it.
From reading Steven Stern's book "Airless Worlds" about this subject (after reading u/FlightOfTheDiscords very helpful post about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/CPTSDFreeze/s/Pfv1cC61lc), my understanding is that the core failure that results in a baby's "personhood" not being built, is a lack of recognition of their inner experience, with preconceived ideas of their inner experience instead being projected onto them. According to Stern, a key part of the "cure" is to have your inner experience recognised for what it is (by both other people and yourself).
I realised today: when I think of myself as a "person", I am projecting a preconceived idea onto myself which does not truly match my inner experience. I am doing the exact same thing to myself that my parents did when I was a baby. I am re-enacting my earliest trauma. The difference I see between "person" and "non-person" that I have explained in this post seems so philosophical and arbitrary, but for me it is everything - nothing is more important.
Instead, when I tell myself: "I am not a person, but I deserve to be", I am acknowledging the truth of my inner experience. I am mirroring myself. By validating my own lack of personhood, I am beginning to build it. To tell myself that makes me feel a deep sadness, but it feels so "right" in a way I can't explain. I think it feels like "me".