Which begs the question: If a rock is not defined by reference to human observations, then what does the definition reference?
— Echarmion

Rocks. — S

We had a good laugh at this at work today when I relayed the conversation to my colleagues.

Nothing I said suggests I want anything but a critique of MY thinking, not a substitution of yours for it. You did the latter constantly and never once did the former.

The reason this thread has lasted so long is because you’re fun to play with. You offer no argument in the dialectic style, but reject everything under the guise of failure to think like you do.

You over-estimate yourself by supposing there’s a box to think outside of. There isn’t; the OP is too straightforward to be out of a box. Being in an established metaphysical box is entirely sufficient to falsify the conclusins in the OP.

No definition is ever entirely sufficient for the explanation of a particular physical object, for definitions are universals. Nor is a definition ever sufficient for enunciation of the conditions of particular objects or sets of objects. Whenever definitions are used in your argument, you fail to sustain it.

Irrelevant. No way to prove it, which leaves it as mere anecdotal fanfare for the common man.