4 ms·

People like definitions that have clearly defined boundaries but biology is not like that. There can be a messy continuum between is and is not. Things can mat

People like definitions that have clearly defined boundaries but biology is not like that. There can be a messy continuum between is and is not. Things can match a definition strongly by some measures but miss some that are critical to how other things meet the definition. At best, a definition is a constellation of semi-related characteristic where some organism meet some subset and other meet another subset, but there isn’t a 100% match and may not even be an overlap.

yowzadave 3y ago
> There can be a messy continuum between is and is not. Exactly--concepts like "life" were invented long before we had an inkling of what viruses were...is it surprising that it's not a perfect abstraction for what we find in reality?
PeterStuer 3y ago
I think people have no qualms about fuzzy boundaries or continuities. The problem arises when those get subsequently mapped onto discrete sets with wildly different consequences. My work in computational ontology led me to believe people are fast to come to a conceptual joint agreement in a given model when the outcome is not consequential, but find it nearly impossible to settle when there are strong implications attached to a labeling. Language only works between people that ultimatly want to agree.
- vjk800 3y ago
  If labeling has fuzzy boundaries, perhaps it shouldn't have strong implications. If it does, the boundary cases behave chaotically, which is usually not acceptable behaviour. I mean, if the labels have no consequences, what is the point of labeling in the first place? Organizing everything in the world into neat boxes feels so early 20th century to me. Back when we still thought that human reasoning can be applied to achieve a complete understanding of the world and everything in it. Putting things into boxes is a coping mechanism for the feeling of chaos; people do it because it makes them feel good, not because it actually reflects how things are.
  - InSteady 3y ago
    >If labeling has fuzzy boundaries, perhaps it shouldn't have strong implications. Well, it's tricky because labelling is so useful (oftentimes crucial for communication purposes), but we would be hamstringing ourselves if we either a. held off on labeling things with fuzzy boundaries altogether or b. refused to entertain possibilities with strong implications because a labelled phenomenon has fuzzy boundaries. Best to remember that labels are useful but with very important limitations. Ultimately, when we get out to the edge of our understanding the boundaries will always be fuzzy, at least until a breakthrough (and sometimes long after). Whenever you are at a boundary, continually remind yourself that the label is less important than communication and exploration of what actually appears to be going on. Are viruses alive? This is a very interesting question to try and answer from different angles, but arriving on a definitive "yes or no" here is not at all the most important thing about viruses to be worrying about.
  - PeterStuer 3y ago
    We label because we need to compress reality before we can reason and make sense. Is this a limitation of human intelligence? Sure, but I would hypothesise it is even more fundamental. Irreducible complexity can only be observed and reacted to, it takes away the proactive. So we make do with reduced models that are definetly wrong, but sometimes usefull.

yowzadave 3y ago

> There can be a messy continuum between is and is not. Exactly--concepts like "life" were invented long before we had an inkling of what viruses were...is it surprising that it's not a perfect abstraction for what we find in reality?

PeterStuer 3y ago

I think people have no qualms about fuzzy boundaries or continuities. The problem arises when those get subsequently mapped onto discrete sets with wildly different consequences. My work in computational ontology led me to believe people are fast to come to a conceptual joint agreement in a given model when the outcome is not consequential, but find it nearly impossible to settle when there are strong implications attached to a labeling. Language only works between people that ultimatly want to agree.

vjk800 3y ago
If labeling has fuzzy boundaries, perhaps it shouldn't have strong implications. If it does, the boundary cases behave chaotically, which is usually not acceptable behaviour. I mean, if the labels have no consequences, what is the point of labeling in the first place? Organizing everything in the world into neat boxes feels so early 20th century to me. Back when we still thought that human reasoning can be applied to achieve a complete understanding of the world and everything in it. Putting things into boxes is a coping mechanism for the feeling of chaos; people do it because it makes them feel good, not because it actually reflects how things are.
- InSteady 3y ago
  >If labeling has fuzzy boundaries, perhaps it shouldn't have strong implications. Well, it's tricky because labelling is so useful (oftentimes crucial for communication purposes), but we would be hamstringing ourselves if we either a. held off on labeling things with fuzzy boundaries altogether or b. refused to entertain possibilities with strong implications because a labelled phenomenon has fuzzy boundaries. Best to remember that labels are useful but with very important limitations. Ultimately, when we get out to the edge of our understanding the boundaries will always be fuzzy, at least until a breakthrough (and sometimes long after). Whenever you are at a boundary, continually remind yourself that the label is less important than communication and exploration of what actually appears to be going on. Are viruses alive? This is a very interesting question to try and answer from different angles, but arriving on a definitive "yes or no" here is not at all the most important thing about viruses to be worrying about.
- PeterStuer 3y ago
  We label because we need to compress reality before we can reason and make sense. Is this a limitation of human intelligence? Sure, but I would hypothesise it is even more fundamental. Irreducible complexity can only be observed and reacted to, it takes away the proactive. So we make do with reduced models that are definetly wrong, but sometimes usefull.