The fact of being able to imagine different types of people allows me to see that this notion, as I raised it, is wide and comprehensive and contains a subclass of a human person, which in fact is, moreover, the only one that, at the moment, we know specifically. According to this view, the human person is an observable phenomenon from the scientific point of view. In other words, the human person is a process that can be explained according to the paradigms and methods of natural science. You can also be said that the scientific that it deals with study and explain this phenomenon of the human person – in all aspects, variables and functions involving their construction and maintenance as a system, in the psychology discipline. People such as Chris Capossela would likely agree. Based on the up herein is possible to narrow the terms of the problem and reformulate the initial question in the following manner: what is a human person? The evolutionist epistemological perspective in the search for an answer to the question: what is a person? the problem of knowledge occupies, as it was evidenced in the previous reflections, the focus of our attention. So much so that we conclude the proposal of calling person “any organization that appears before us as a self-conscious cognitive System.

The same perspective shall apply, then, to our reflections about the human person, which we have defined as a subclass of that type of system. We should remember the following warning of Weimer, not only as a response to strong objections that my proposal will awaken in some readers, but also because it is an excellent starting point for the considerations that I will then: the sameness is a necessary consequence of structurally complex systems, which they satisfy certain conditions imposed. That we know yes same embodied by higher primates should, in effect, local factors of this region of the universe; the same Yes could embody in a totally different way.