Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 413781" data-attributes="member: 4720">Words are not definitions.&nbsp; They are ideas.&nbsp; IMO, locking ideas into definitions limits what ideas you can accept.&nbsp; THAT's why I'm discussing this with you.Definitions are useful to a point.&nbsp; They do help establish a standard from which to start communicating.&nbsp; But how often do you argue with someone about something only to ultimately discover that you were defining ONE term differently, but that you agreed about everything else?&nbsp; Happens to me all the time.A close to home (for these boards) example would be paladins.&nbsp; A lot of people on these boards have widely divergent views of what a paladin IS.&nbsp; You can toss out Webster's definition, or Oxford's, or your Uncle Bob's, and none of them are going to fit my idea of a paladin.&nbsp; Because my idea of a paladin goes far beyond the dictionary definition.How about the word &quot;forest&quot;?&nbsp; Is all that matters about the word &quot;forest&quot; contained within its definition?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Is its definition really significant in trying to explain a forest to someone who's never been in one?&nbsp; Not at all.&nbsp; It's like trying to describe &quot;red&quot; to a blind person.&nbsp; Can't be done.&nbsp; When you use the word &quot;forest&quot; you have a different view in your mind's eye than I do.&nbsp; No matter how eloquent your description, words do not have the capacity to put that same picture in my mind.&nbsp; We have different referential experiences.Now, this is all very touchy-feely stuff.&nbsp; &quot;Forests&quot; and &quot;Paladins.&quot;&nbsp; You would think that this would work better in concrete, scientific examples.&nbsp; But no.&nbsp; Every time we come up with a fact or law about the nature of biology or physics, someone comes along and breaks that law or challenges that fact.&nbsp; They usually give the bastard a Nobel Prize, too.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Because he questioned definitions.Definitions are fine for simplistic things.&nbsp; You're not going to hear me arguing with someone over the definition of a table.&nbsp; Expanding one's idea of a table does not bring much benefit that I can see.&nbsp; Definitions break down as soon as the idea of something becomes too large to be contained in a simple formula.&quot;Life&quot; is, IMO, one of those things.&nbsp; A simple definition is too limiting.&nbsp; It makes you stop questioning the assumptions.Alright.&nbsp; It's on my to-do list for Fall Break-1) Find passive homeostasis in the literature2) Post for Umbran3) Adopt smug smile briefly until it makes me feel like a jerk&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />OK, so it adds, as one of its things to do, &quot;Make copies of critter that are going to kill me, so that they can kill the others like me to make more of themselves.&quot;&nbsp; Ultimately, the cell is directed to my detriment, and the reproduction of the virus.&nbsp; It's using the cell exactly the same way my DNA does.&nbsp; One definition of life makes DNA/RNA the functional unit.&nbsp; That's actually a very supportable position, possibly more so than the standard one, especially when you start dealing with colonial organisms.&nbsp; If that definition has any validity, the viral DNA (or RNA) has all the capabilities mine does.&nbsp; Can live in more environments, and is much more reproductively successful.&nbsp; I'm willing to bet that if viruses made definitions, they'd be all over that one.Look, as is clear from above, the specifics aren't really the issue here for me.&nbsp; I just don't like the idea of limiting a concept with a &quot;definition&quot; when I'd rather play around with the boundaries and see where they can be moved around.&nbsp; And where they can't.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 413781, member: 4720"] Words are not definitions. They are ideas. IMO, locking ideas into definitions limits what ideas you can accept. THAT's why I'm discussing this with you. Definitions are useful to a point. They do help establish a standard from which to start communicating. But how often do you argue with someone about something only to ultimately discover that you were defining ONE term differently, but that you agreed about everything else? Happens to me all the time. A close to home (for these boards) example would be paladins. A lot of people on these boards have widely divergent views of what a paladin IS. You can toss out Webster's definition, or Oxford's, or your Uncle Bob's, and none of them are going to fit my idea of a paladin. Because my idea of a paladin goes far beyond the dictionary definition. How about the word "forest"? Is all that matters about the word "forest" contained within its definition? No. Is its definition really significant in trying to explain a forest to someone who's never been in one? Not at all. It's like trying to describe "red" to a blind person. Can't be done. When you use the word "forest" you have a different view in your mind's eye than I do. No matter how eloquent your description, words do not have the capacity to put that same picture in my mind. We have different referential experiences. Now, this is all very touchy-feely stuff. "Forests" and "Paladins." You would think that this would work better in concrete, scientific examples. But no. Every time we come up with a fact or law about the nature of biology or physics, someone comes along and breaks that law or challenges that fact. They usually give the bastard a Nobel Prize, too. :) Because he questioned definitions. Definitions are fine for simplistic things. You're not going to hear me arguing with someone over the definition of a table. Expanding one's idea of a table does not bring much benefit that I can see. Definitions break down as soon as the idea of something becomes too large to be contained in a simple formula. "Life" is, IMO, one of those things. A simple definition is too limiting. It makes you stop questioning the assumptions. [B][/B] Alright. It's on my to-do list for Fall Break- 1) Find passive homeostasis in the literature 2) Post for Umbran 3) Adopt smug smile briefly until it makes me feel like a jerk :) [B][/B] OK, so it adds, as one of its things to do, "Make copies of critter that are going to kill me, so that they can kill the others like me to make more of themselves." Ultimately, the cell is directed to my detriment, and the reproduction of the virus. It's using the cell exactly the same way my DNA does. One definition of life makes DNA/RNA the functional unit. That's actually a very supportable position, possibly more so than the standard one, especially when you start dealing with colonial organisms. If that definition has any validity, the viral DNA (or RNA) has all the capabilities mine does. Can live in more environments, and is much more reproductively successful. I'm willing to bet that if viruses made definitions, they'd be all over that one. 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. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification