Canis said:Look, as is clear from above, the specifics aren't really the issue here for me. I just don't like the idea of limiting a concept with a "definition" when I'd rather play around with the boundaries and see where they can be moved around. And where they can't.
Well, guess what? Unless you had a definition - put a limit on the idea - you'd have no boundaries to play around with. Think about that a second. If you did not have definitions for "life" and "nonliving", how could you play with the boundary between them? You cannot see where the boundary can be moved until you actually put it in place. You yourself seem to imply that the very fact that there is a boundary to play with and investigate is part of the draw. In that case, the definition is helping, rather than hindering, new ideas to form.
The human mind requires a framework of reference points in order to operate. What we can conceive is not limited by the existance of those defined reference points themselves, but in how we choose to use the framework.
A person can choose (or be trained) to think, "I have my framework, nothing exists outside it". That limits what they may conceive. A person may also choose (or be trained) to think, "I have my framework, and it is my starting point for comparisons when considering things that are not clearly covered by that framework." This is a constructive, non-limiting approach. How open or closed a mind is to allowing new ideas into the framework has little to do with the framework itself.
Definitions are required for communication. Definitions can inspire investigation - your "playing with the boundaries".
Last edited:
