Philosophical study of life, death, and nature

Home > Papers and Essays > This page

What Is the Animated Persona, and What Is Its Relationship to Robots, AI, and Deceased People?

An AI Dialogue on Masahiro Morioka's Paper, "The Sense of Someone Appearing There: A Philosophical Investigation into Other Minds, Deceased People, and Animated Persona" (2023) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10746-023-09682-6

Generated by NotebookLM, May 10, 2025

[Audio]

[Dialogue by two AI characters]

You know that feeling when uh someone you loved is gone, but you still sometimes get this well this sense of them.

Yeah.

Maybe just a fleeting impression or I don't know a feeling in a place you both knew.

Or think about when you talk to your pet. You know, they don't understand every word, but it feels like like there's a presence there, something you're actually connecting with,

Right.

What's really going on in those moments? What are we sensing?

That's pretty much the core question for today's deep dive. We're looking at this really fascinating philosophical investigation. It's called the sense of someone appearing there.

Okay.

And it goes right into this feeling that sense of a presence. What's so interesting I think is that it examines this across well all sorts of experiences

Like what?

Like feeling close to people who pass away. Sure.

But also how we perceive things like objects, mannequins, robots.

Yeah.

And even you know living people.

Okay.

So this isn't about ghosts or anything supernatural.

No, not at all.

Our mission for you, the listener, is really to explore a new way of understanding how we perceive personhood, how we sense the presence of others around us.

Exactly.

We're hoping you'll have some of those aha moments, you know.

Yeah.

Things that shed light on everyday stuff, even when our usual ideas about consciousness or or life don't quite seem to apply.

Yeah.

Trying to make sense of those feelings.

And a really key idea that helps us uh unlock this is this concept of an animated persona.

Animated persona. Okay.

Think of that as the main lens we'll be using today to understand all these different kinds of experiences.

All right, let's unpack that then. Maybe start with something really common. That feeling of a deceased loved one being present.

Good place to start. The research we're looking at mentions a story about a woman after her father died. She felt his presence very strongly while she was just drying her hair.

Huh. Was it scary?

No, apparently not. She described it as just a moment of rest. It highlights that feeling of comfort that can come in grief. even if it's just for a second. Something a lot of people recognize, I think.

Definitely. And these experiences feel so real, don't they? Very emotionally powerful.

Absolutely. The author of the piece actually shares a very personal story, too, about touching his own father's body after he passed away.

Oh, wow.

Yeah. And he says, "Intellectually, he knew his father was gone. No soul, nothing like that in his belief."

Yeah.

But he still felt his presence. He even describes later feeling like he was being embraced.

That's powerful. So, it's not necessarily tied to belief in an afterlife. It's about the the raw experience itself.

Precisely the sensory and emotional reality of it.

But it's not always comforting, is it? I remember the paper also mentioned a father who felt he could still sort of converse with his son who was brain dead.

That's right. And what's crucial there is how the father made a distinction. He talked about the physical body versus the he that seemed to talk back.

So maybe that deep connection, years of shared life somehow fueled that perception.

That seems to be the suggestion that shared family experience played a role and well the range of these reported experiences is pretty wide. Some people just feel watched, others have much more uh vivid sensory experiences.

Okay. And the research brings up the phantom limb model. How does that fit in?

Well, it's offered as one potential way to think about it. You know how someone might still feel a limb even after it's amputated?

Yeah.

The idea is similar. The presence of the loved one might be felt like a kind of echo even though their physical body is gone.

That's a really interesting comparison. Okay, so moving on from deceased loved ones, the discussion then shifts, right, to how we get that sense of presence with things that well aren't alive in the way we usually think.

Exactly. Like Victor Frankl's story about the woman in the concentration camp.

Oh, the tree.

Yeah, the tree. She found solace talking to it, feeling eternal life through it. But the key point Frankl makes is she wasn't really connecting with the wood, the physical tree itself, but with something appearing on its surface.

Precisely. That's the crucial insight. It shows this feeling of presence isn't always tied to actual biological life or consciousness as we typically define it.

Okay, that makes sense.

Think about um watching a child who's sleeping really deeply. They're completely still, no obvious signs of consciousness.

Right.

Yet you have this incredibly strong feeling, this conviction that a living person is right there.

Yeah. Absolutely.

So the paper draws a line between the appearance of a person like something that feeling and a living person with potential inner self-consciousness. We sense the appearance first,

The appearance of presence.

Okay. And this becomes even clearer with those other examples like the mannequins.

Oh yeah, the Ugo Randon installation with the clowns. They were so lifelike apparently that it created this really unsettling feeling like one of them might actually be a real person hiding.

You felt that person like something on them.

Exactly. A sense of unease because the appearance was so strong. And then there's a story about your friend in that little serving robot,

Right.

The one that was just basically a cylinder with a cat face carrying drinks, not even humanoid.

But even that triggered the feeling of a person like something being there for your friend.

Yeah, it's strange how little it can take sometimes.

It really makes you question what triggers this feeling. And this leads to the expectation model the research talks about.

Okay, what's that?

It suggests that certain cues, maybe communicative gestures, maybe just looking a certain way, create an expectation in us and that expectation leads us to perceive an agent, a presence even when well technically there isn't one in the usual sense like the dot experiment they mentioned.

Exactly. When the little dot figures seem to communicate, people were more likely to perceive agency even in randomly moving dots nearby. And this expectation can be influenced by all sorts of things. Affection we feel, our beliefs like religious beliefs or just how realistic something looks.

So the key thing isn't whether these things are conscious, but that they trigger a feeling, a perception of presence based on sometimes quite simple cues.

You got it. That's the core insight there.

Okay. So, we've looked at the deceased, art, robots, and they all seem to point towards this core idea, the animated persona. Can you define that simply?

Yeah, the way the paper puts it is quite evocative. It's like a soundless voice saying, "I am here."

Okay.

And this voice, this feeling appears on the surface of something or someone. It's not necessarily something you see with your eyes or hear with your ears in the normal way. It's more of a whole body sense, a strong conviction of presence.

A felt sense of being there. Got it. And it's animated, meaning brought to life by different factors.

Exactly. The animation can come from lots of places. A human shape is a big one obviously, but also our relationship history with someone, affection, our own emotions, any kind of behavior that seems communicative. All these things can contribute to animating this persona and it can appear on well almost anything. A sleeping child, a deceased body, even an inanimate object.

Okay, so let's revisit some of those examples through this animated persona lens. The woman feeling her father's presence,

Right. The animated persona there was likely animated by her love, her grief, maybe regret, and just being in that familiar, intimate setting of her home.

Makes sense. And the mannequin,

The realistic human shape, the posture, maybe combined with the observer's own feeling of uh unease or even fear in that gallery setting, those animated the person-like something.

And the little cat-faced robot.

It's simple movements trying to interact plus that somewhat familiar cat-like face that was enough to animate a persona for your friend.

It's amazing how that works. Even a simple object, like the example of the father's wristwatch.

Yeah. That can carry an animated persona purely through the affection, the memories, the regret associated with the person who wore it.

And the author's father's body just after death.

The familiar shape, maybe some residual warmth that could sustain the animated persona, that feeling of presence for a time.

Okay, what about Frankl's tree? That seems a bit different.

It is interesting. You have the animated persona, the woman feeling eternal life on the tree surface. But there's also this element of conversation,

But it was a subjective conversation, right? Happening just for her.

Exactly. Which contrasts with the father and his brain deadad son. There the father felt the animated persona and he also perceived a conversation but again that interaction was subjective internal to his experience.
This really highlights the difference.

Then there's the feeling of presence the animator persona and then there's the actual objective interaction.

Yes. And that brings us neatly to thinking about living conscious people. The research suggests when we interact with someone who's awake and responsive, we're actually perceiving two distinct things simultaneously.

Okay. What are they?

First, there's the animated persona appearing on their body that I am here feeling,

Right.

And second there's what the paper calls the counterpart of the conversation the actual observable back and forth interaction happening between you

Huh, so they're like two different layers happening at once.

Kind of. One is more about our subjective feeling of their presence the persona, the other is the objective exchange that anyone could witness.

So even when I'm just chatting with a friend there's this underlying sense of their presence the persona and then the actual words and gestures the conversation itself.

Correct. And conversation here means that two-way symmetrical interaction using language, verbal or non-verbal, it's objective if others can see it happening,

Like us talking now,

Right. And it's subjective if it's internal, like the woman in the tree or the father in his son's body.
Okay. So, back to the sleeping child example, they have an animated persona.

Yes, definitely. And they also have the potential for an objective conversation when they wake up.

Uh-huh. But the mannequin only has the animated persona. Exactly. It looks like it could be part of a conversation, but it lacks that potential for a real objective exchange.

This is actually making me rethink everyday interactions. Now, the research talks about the supremacy of surfacness over behindness. That sounds academic. Can you break that down?

Yeah, it does sound a bit dense. Let's try think of it like this. Normally, we assume that when we interact with someone, their behavior, what we see on the surface is just a clue to their hidden inner world. Their mind behind the surface,

Right. Common sense view.

The animated persona theory flips this a bit. It says the primary thing we react to is the appearance on the surface. The animated persona, that feeling of presence that I am here is what hits us first.

Okay.

The theory focuses on the conviction that there's an inner mind animating the person which arises from that surface appearance. But it's kind of agnostic. It doesn't necessarily rely on assumptions about what that inner mind is doing or even if it's strictly necessary for that initial feeling of presence.

So, it's like seeing the front of a cube, you know there's a back. But seeing a person, the theory says the important part for our immediate sense of them is the front, the surface persona. Not necessarily speculating about the back, the hidden mind.

That's a good analogy. Think about the mannequin. Again, we know there's no hidden mind, just plastic. Yet, the person like something, the animated persona still appears strongly on the surface,

Right.

The supremacy of surfacness over behindness basically means that powerful feeling of presence we get from the surface doesn't need support from us imagining or confirming a hidden inner world. The surface carries the weight.

But maybe that's different for the woman sensing her father or looking at his watch. We're not really thinking about a hidden realm inside the watch.

That's a fair point. In those cases, the connection is more direct memory affection animating the persona on the object or in the space. The supremacy of surface idea is perhaps most relevant when we are tempted to at a hidden mind like with the mannequin or even with other living people.

How so with living people?

Well, the common sense view heavily emphasizes figuring out the other person's hidden thoughts and feelings. The animated persona theory suggests we perceive both the mind as the persona and the body right there on the surface. It takes a more neutral view on whether understanding their hidden inner state is always crucial for basic interaction. Unless, you know, we're specifically trying to figure out what they're thinking.

Okay, interesting distinction. Now, What about projection? The idea that maybe we're just projecting our own feelings onto these things, fear onto the mannequin, grief onto the memory of the father.

Yeah, the research definitely addresses that. It acknowledges that perceiving an animated persona is subjective. Absolutely. And it agrees that projection our own emotions, expectations, history, likely plays a big role in how that persona gets animated.

So, it is projection.

Well, yes and no. It argues that this projection isn't usually a conscious choice like I'm going to pretend this robot is alive. It's more like an uncontrollable projection. Something that happens to us passively.

Passively.

Think about feeling a deceased friend's presence strongly in a place you both loved. That feeling might be deeply connected to your own grief or memories. Sure. But the experience of their presence feels real. It imposes itself on you. You're not actively deciding to feel it.

I see. So projection is part of the mechanism, not necessarily the whole explanation or something we control.

Exactly. Even personification like talking to your plants or your car can be seen this way. Sometimes it's just talking at them, but sometimes you might actually sense a kind of presence, an animated persona fueled by that projection.

Okay, let's shift gears a bit to morality. This was a really fascinating part of the research. I thought,

Me too, brings up some really thoughtprovoking scenarios like you could have a conversation counterpart without necessarily feeling an animated persona.

How would that work?

Think of some current AI software. You could have a perfectly rational coherent exchange with it, get information, maybe even solve problems, but you might not feel that sense of someone there in the same way you do with a person or even a pet.

Right. It feels different, functional, but maybe not present in that same way.

Exactly. And the opposite can be true, too. You can perceive a strong animated persona like on the realistic mannequin or the father's wristwatch, but there's obviously no possibility of an objective conversation.

Okay. And then the example of the slave and master That was quite stark.

It really was.

The idea is that a master might interact with a slave, give commands, get responses, so there's a conversation counterpart in a way.

Yeah. Very unequal one.

Extremely unequal. But the master might not perceive an animated persona in the slave. They might see them purely as a tool and object, dehumanizing them by not sensing that I am here.

That's chilling.

But then contrast that with a sadistic master who enjoys inflicting pain. The research argues that this kind of cruelty often relies on perceiving the animated persona. The pleasure perversely comes from violating that implicit sense of presence, that vulnerability.

Wow.

So the argument becomes that the animated persona itself carries a kind of implicit moral message that I am here also quietly says, "So treat me with consideration. Don't harm me. Don't abandon me."

So perceiving that persona can act as a kind of natural inhibition against violence or disrespect.

That's the idea. It taps into something fundamental in us. The thought experiment about abusing a super realistic humanlike robot on stage really drives this home.

Yeah, that made me uncomfortable just reading it.
Right. Even if you know it's a machine and can't feel pain, the strength of the animated persona makes the act seem morally wrong, disturbing. It violates that perceived presence.

So, the research suggests maybe we should even regulate that kind of entertainment because it could damage our own moral foundations.

That's the implication that treating things with strong animated persona badly, even nonsensient things might erode our own empathy. But it's careful to clarify. Perceiving an animated persona doesn't automatically grant human rights. A mannequin has a persona, but no rights.

And crucially, the lack of a perceived persona, like in the dehumanizing bastard example, doesn't take away rights that should exist.

Exactly. Rights are a separate crucial category. The persona relates more to our immediate intuitive moral responses.

Okay. Finally, the re wraps up with a kind of categorization, right? Bringing together the persona and conversation ideas across different beings.

Yeah, there's a table in the source that maps out the combinations. Persona with conversation, persona without, conversation without persona, etc. across humans, animals, objects, AI.

What's the main takeaway from that categorization?

I think the main point is that this theory suggests redrawing the lines a bit. Instead of the primary division being human versus non-human, maybe the more significant line for understanding our experience is whether a person like something an animated persona appears to us or not.

That's a big shift.

It is. It leads to this quite radical suggestion that all animated persona, whether they appear on a living human, a beloved pet, a mannequin, or even a memory laden object, might share the same fundamental onlogical status.

Wait, so the feeling of presence from a mannequin is in some basic sense the same kind of thing as the presence I feel from a living friend. That seems wrong intuitively.

It absolutely challenges our intuition. Like comparing different paintings, they might vary hugely in quality or subject, but they're all fundamentally paintings.

The theory proposes something similar for animated persona. It acknowledges our intuition distinguishes them, but questions if that distinction holds up philosophically at the most basic level of appearing presence.

That's definitely mind-bending.

And the research honestly concludes by saying, look, how exactly all these conditions shape history, emotion, expectation in interact to make a persona emerge. That needs a lot more work probably involving psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, the works.

Okay, so let's try and summarize the big takeaway for everyone listening. It seems to be this. That feeling of someone appearing there. That sense of presence isn't always about detecting an actual inner consciousness like we usually assume,

Right. It might often be more about this animated persona,

This I am here feeling that gets activated on the surface by a whole mix of things. What something looks like, how it behaves, our own history, our emotions, our expectations.

And understanding that really shifts how we think about what it means for something or someone to have a presence for us.

Exactly. And maybe the most surprising or counterintuitive bit is that idea we just discussed that the animated persona we perceive on say a sophisticated robot or even a simple momento might share a fundamental nature, a similar kind of being there with the one we perceive on another living human.

Wow. Okay. So, For you listening, if you're looking to get your head around complex ideas efficiently, this concept of the animated persona offers a really useful, maybe even efficient new framework.

Yeah, it gives you a different lens to understand your own social perceptions, your emotional responses to people, technology, even objects in the world. Think about experiences like grief or bonding with a pet or feeling creeped out by a realistic doll. This offers a way to analyze those feelings.

Definitely provides a new perspective.

And maybe it leaves us with a final thought to chew on. If this person-like something we perceive, this animated persona is often fundamentally a surface phenomenon
animated by us as much as by the thing itself.

What does that mean for our ideas about connection, about empathy,

And our moral responsibilities, not just to each other, but maybe even to very sophisticated AI in the future or to things we deeply cherish?

Exactly. What does it truly mean to be present to another if presence itself is constructed in this complex way?

Lots to think about there. A really fascinating dive into how we perceive the world around us.