A philosophy professor once told me that there's no such thing as a perfect definition of any word. He used "chair" as an example. I haven't thought about it much, but it seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to make a very good definition of a chair.
Doing a definition search on google gives me:
quote:Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back.
That's a decent start, but obviously it's lacking. I'll add to that definition the requirement that the thing be man-made. So we have
quote:Chair: a man-made seat for one person with a support for the back.
I suspect there are a fair number of non-chair items that fit that definition, though. Can anyone make it better? Anything that should be eliminated?
(If we can get a good enough definition of chair, we can move on to a more difficult word. Links to google images encouraged - I couldn't find an image of a backless chair, for instance, that didn't make me think "stool", but perhaps someone else can.)
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
There's also the question of whether you want to describe the idea of a chair or classify real world chairs. For example, there are many stories in which aliens have chairs. Chairs made by aliens or whatnot, but chairs nonetheless. That would amend the definition of the former but not the latter. (i.e. man-made?)
Edit: Bah, too late but whatever
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Does it have to be a living thing? Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
By perfect definition you mean describes all chairs and excludes all non-chairs?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
All right, so we have
quote:Chair: a person-created seat for one creature with a support for the back.
Mucus, are the alien chairs you're thinking of different in form than that described above, or are they just not man-made?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Would you consider a hot tub seat a chair? It has back support, and it's for one person.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Actually I have a chair for my cell phone. So organism doesn't cut it either...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Jhai: I was thinking not man-made, like Vulcan-made or Cylon-made. I don't know whether person really covers Cylon either, but neither do the people on BSG either Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I think you may have misunderstood your professor's point. A word is a concept that we apply to objects (whether they be real or theoretical). To apply to your example, each of us has our own concept that is signified by the word "chair." It varies from person to person and the word in general use has a flexibility to it that could, in a poetical application, be used to describe a group of rocks. By tacking on additional qualifiers to the definition, you begin to inch closer to defining a specific object or sub-set of objects instead of the word itself.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
scifibum, basically, yeah.
Shigosei - do you have an image? I'm not sure what you're describing? Maybe there needs to be free-standing clause?
Alcon - do you have an image? Do you really think the item you have is "chair-like" or is just called a cell-phone chair? Was it created for a cell-phone specifically?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
It looks like a chair, it's called a cellphone chair and it was created for a cell-phone specifically. I'll see if I can find an image.
That's not the one I have but it's the same sort of idea.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:Chair: a person-created seat for one living creature or one non-living creature-shaped item with a support for the back.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: Chair: an artificially created seat for a single living creature or single inanimate object with support for the back.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, one other example. The Replicators on SG1 created chairs, but they're definitely not people, especially the non-human form ones.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OK, so I'm with your prof and Godric. There is no definition that is both precise and concise that encompasses all chairs and excludes all non chairs. Language doesn't have that kind of mathematical elegance.
You can approach such a definition, but by the time you do, I don't think you'll have anything functionally more useful than "Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back." People who understand the concept of chair will not get a better understanding from your 99% complete definition than they do from this approximation.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: Chair: An object intended to be sat on.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Chair: a person-created free standing seat for one living creature or one non-living creature-shaped item with a support for the back.
It must stand on its' own. It's what in part distinguishes a chair from a seat.
quote:[quote]Chair: an artificially created seat for a single living creature or single inanimate object with support for the back.
Yeah, I fixed that as soon as the post went through. I hit submit post before I noticed it. I'm bad at editing.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote: Chair: An object intended to be sat on.
But that includes stools. Which I guess begs the question, is a stool a chair? Are the set of stools a subset of chairs?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OK, so I'm with your prof and Godric. There is no definition that is both precise and concise that encompasses all chairs and excludes all non chairs. Language doesn't have that kind of mathematical elegance.
You can approach such a definition, but by the time you do, I don't think you'll have anything functionally more useful than "Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back." People who understand the concept of chair will not get a better understanding from your 99% complete definition than they do from this approximation.
Although, now that I'm thinking about it, and seeing the interesting responses so far, maybe "Chair: a seat for one person or object, with a support for the back" might be a better general definition. You might arrive there by mashing up definitions 1 & 5 from Merriam-Webster.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Godric & scifibum - it's a game. I don't disagree that you can't get a perfect definition of anything. I am very interested to see how good of one we can get.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote: Chair: An object intended to be sat on.
But that includes stools. Which I guess begs the question, is a stool a chair? Are the set of stools a subset of chairs?
But it kind of contradicts Leonide's example of a dollhouse chair which is never intended to be sat on. (Not even by a doll if you purchase it alone without any dolls)
BB: "Stand on its own" could be just as tricky a concept as "chair."
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OK, so I'm with your prof and Godric. There is no definition that is both precise and concise that encompasses all chairs and excludes all non chairs. Language doesn't have that kind of mathematical elegance.
You can approach such a definition, but by the time you do, I don't think you'll have anything functionally more useful than "Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back." People who understand the concept of chair will not get a better understanding from your 99% complete definition than they do from this approximation.
Although, now that I'm thinking about it, and seeing the interesting responses so far, maybe "Chair: a seat for one person or object, with a support for the back" might be a better general definition. You might arrive there by mashing up definitions 1 & 5 from Merriam-Webster.
It's still a fun game to try and come up with that precise definition. Regardless of whether or not it'd be useful.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would argue that an object has chair-ness through the intent you have for it, not through its physical properties. A Laz-Y-Boy hanging upside down from the ceiling as part of an art piece is not a chair. But a toadstool is, if Alice in Wonderland uses it as one.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Godric & scifibum - it's a game. I don't disagree that you can't get a perfect definition of anything. I am very interested to see how good of one we can get.
I realize it's a game. And I'm fairly series about my submission in regards to it being as good a definition of chair you can get. But then, I guess that depends on your definition of... heh... definition. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I can think of a variety of ergonomically designed chairs that don't have back support. example Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OK, sorry. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
According to that logic, though, afr, a stool is a chair and a couch is a chair. I don't think that can be accurate. But intent as a whole might be a worthwhile concept - I'd go with the intent of the creator, though, and not the user. So a dollhouse chair is still a chair, even if you purchase it with the intent to never sit a doll in it.
Regarding "free-standing" - would a chair carved out of a rock (but still attached to the rock at the place the feet touch the ground) still be a chair? My gut is telling me yes, but my gut is also very hungry.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Rabbit, how do you sit in that?
Edit: found an image. I'd be more inclined to call that a stool.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"An artifact that is intended for one person-shaped entity to sit on, with support for the back (of a person-shaped entity), and is not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose, or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat. "
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Unless we can call Rabbit's example a non-chair, she's tossed a significant wrench into the working definitions so far offered.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "An artifact that is intended for one person-shaped entity to sit on, with support for the back (of a person-shaped entity), and is not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose, or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat. "
I love it!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Could you extrapolate? Free standing to me entails standing on it's own.
Jhai: If such a place of sitting was simply hewn out of the side of a rock I would think that it was a seat, not a chair. There might be cracks with "free-standing" but I think the fact that the person sitting must be elevated off the ground is important.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Rabbit, how do you sit in that?
You sit on it in sort of a kneeling position with your knees on the lower cushion and your bottom on the upper cushion.
Oh, I found a picture of some one sitting on one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is another really unusual chair. This type of chair is typical called a massage chair but presume that the head support has an adequate hole in it, I think it looks like it would be a great position for reading.
I always have a hard time find a comfortable reading position.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "An artifact that is intended for one person-shaped entity to sit on, with support for the back (of a person-shaped entity), and is not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose, or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat. "
I love it!
I like it, but now I'm thinking of a seat carved out of a big boulder. I'd say it's not a chair, but it doesn't seem to be caught by any of the conditionals, since it's not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is another really unusual chair. This type of chair is typical called a massage chair but presume that the head support has an adequate hole in it, I think it looks like it would be a great position for reading.
I always have a hard time find a comfortable reading position.
Well that example throws out most of our working definition. I don't think I have any contention that that is a chair.
As for reading positions, do you find your biggest problem is that your arms start to hurt when they are bent for long periods of time?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I really don't think the kneeling-chair is a chair; it seems much more stool like, despite its name.
The upright massage chair looks more chair like to me. Maybe we can change "back support" to "trunk support"?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
When does a dentist's chair cease to be a chair as the dentist leans you back?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I still don't like the intent clause of "or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat." If someone fashions a chair out of heroin, carefully disguised to pass a border check, its still a chair and can still be sat on if one wishes, its just one that is never intended by the creator for use.
BB: Well, free standing is a tricky concept.
Jhai noted one complication. I can add another. Say you're on the holodeck on the Enterprise and you sit in a chair, carefully fashioned by holograms to look like a chair and using forcefields to hold up your body. Its hard to say that the chair stands on its own, it requires a constant input of energy. But for all intents and purposes it looks like a chair and serves the purpose of a chair.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I really don't think the kneeling-chair is a chair; it seems much more stool like, despite it's name.
The upright massage chair looks more chair like to me. Maybe we can change "back support" to "trunk support"?
But don't stools offer trunk support? What if we go with, "supports both the trunk and torso?"
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
By trunk I secretly meant torso. Duh.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Any object that the designated chair-recogniser accepts as a chair. The current DCR for purposes of this thread is Jhai."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Rabbit, how do you sit in that?
Edit: found an image. I'd be more inclined to call that a stool.
You might call it a stool, but I've never seen it called that. Its sometimes called a kneeling chair or and ergonomic chair but never a stool.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I like it, but now I'm thinking of a seat carved out of a big boulder. I'd say it's not a chair, but it doesn't seem to be caught by any of the conditionals, since it's not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose."
I'd call that a chair, in fact I was thinking of that as something I wanted to include.
Mucus, I knew that was poorly written. I am saying that objects which are not intended to be sat on by person-shaped entities, but are intended to look like chairs, and are shaped like chairs, are still chairs. This includes doll chairs and cell phone chairs, and excludes paintings of chairs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I still don't like the intent clause of "or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat." If someone fashions a chair out of heroin, carefully disguised to pass a border check, its still a chair and can still be sat on if one wishes, its just one that is never intended by the creator for use.
BB: Well, free standing is a tricky concept.
Jhai noted one complication. I can add another. Say you're on the holodeck on the Enterprise and you sit in a chair, carefully fashioned by holograms to look like a chair and using forcefields to hold up your body. Its hard to say that the chair stands on its own, it requires a constant input of energy. But for all intents and purposes it looks like a chair and serves the purpose of a chair.
That would still be a holodeck chair. I think "holodeck" would be a necessary addendum when describing the chair. You could certainly call it a chair just for simplicities sake but that's no different than looking at a photograph of a chair and saying, "look a chair."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you want to clearly distinguish between chairs and stools there is another problem. Bar stools frequently have back rest and fit all the other aspects of the definition.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I object to all of these efforts to redefine "Chair"
Everyone knows that God created Chairs to have four legs, a seat, a back and room for ONE person.
Next thing you know you'll have love-seats, chairs for your dog, bleachers and couches.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
You might have better luck starting with a list of properties commonly found in chairs and saying "objects with a number of the properties defined above, which would not be better defined as couches or stools".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That would still be a holodeck chair. I think "holodeck" would be a necessary addendum when describing the chair. You could certainly call it a chair just for simplicities sake but that's no different than looking at a photograph of a chair and saying, "look a chair."
I picked the Star Trek example for a reason though. In that world, a holographic doctor is still a doctor. An artificial man (Data) still has all the rights of a normal man.
Besides, its clearly different from a photograph of a chair in that one can sit on it and all five senses could be fooled that it is a chair. In fact, if you didn't know you were in a holodeck you wouldn't hesitate to call it a chair. (In fact, one could argue its *more* of a chair than the heroin chair which would fail one notable sense)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Does a chair have to be made of matter? Is there some reason why a series of energy forcefields that are capable of supporting a human body in a sitting position are less of a chair that a collection of pieces of matter that perform the same function.
I think the best definition of a chair would have to be based on function rather than form.
chair: Any artificial structure or subset of a larger structure which serves the primary function of providing support for both the lower and upper body of a single humanoid in a sitting position.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
revision 1:
cchair: Any artificial structure or subset of a larger structure which is capable of baring the full weight of a humanoid body and serves the primary function of providing support for both the lower and upper body of a single humanoid in a sitting position.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
What about dog & cell chairs?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And the heroin chair.
(But in general, I do like a functional definition better than a form definition, it seems less troublesome)
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: revision 1:
cchair: Any artificial structure or subset of a larger structure which is capable of baring the full weight of a humanoid body and serves the primary function of providing support for both the lower and upper body of a single humanoid in a sitting position.
Revision 2:
Char: Any artificial structure or subset of a larger structure which is capable of bearing the full weight of a humanoid body or any inanimate object. It must include support for both the lower and upper body of a single humanoid in a sitting position, though it does not have to be of a size and strength to support a humanoid in a sitting position.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for reading positions, do you find your biggest problem is that your arms start to hurt when they are bent for long periods of time?
No, my problems with reading positions are typically back and neck strain not arms.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: What about dog & cell chairs?
What is a cell chair?
Dog chair I think I understand but I'm going to ignore it since the people who use such things are typically the same people who think dogs are people too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: ]Revision 2:
Char: Any artificial structure or subset of a larger structure which is capable of bearing the full weight of a humanoid body or any inanimate object. It must include support for both the lower and upper body of a single humanoid in a sitting position, though it does not have to be of a size and strength to support a humanoid in a sitting position.
"capable of bearing the full weight of a humanoid body" and "does not have to be of the size and strength to support a humanoid" seem contradictor.
Revisions 3: Chair:
a) Any artificial structure or subset of a larger structure which is capable of bearing the full weight of a humanoid body and which includes support for both the lower and upper body of a single humanoid in a sitting position or
b) Any object which has identical form to an object that serves function A, but which is built to either large or smaller scale.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So benches are all chairs?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: So benches are all chairs?
The "single humanoid in sitting position" bit rules out benches.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Oops. We lost the "single" bit somewhere along the line.
Question: can chairs be made which are meant to be used by two people at the same time, or is it no longer a chair? What about a single item with two seats & a shared back? Is that a double chair?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The new working definitions aren't very exclusive.
Which I think is going to continue to be a problem if intended use is not part of the definition.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: So benches are all chairs?
What do you see as the difference between a bench and a chair. If a something you call a bench has a back rest and is made to fit just one person, I can't see any difference between that and a chair.
BTW, built to scale implies all dimensions are scaled by the same factor. So for example a doll house chair that is a miniature replicate of a regular chair can be said to be built to smaller scale. If you take a chair and modify it to make it wide enough to seat 2 or 10 people, it isn't simply built to a larger scale.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think I see how we lost the restiction to single person. See if this fixes it
Revisions 4: Chair:
a) Any artificial structure or subset of a larger structure which is capable of bearing the full weight of a humanoid body and which serves the primary purpose of providing support for both the lower and upper body of a single humanoid in a sitting position or
b) Any object which has identical form to an object that serves function A, but which is built to either large or smaller scale.
Note: A chair doesn't cease to be a chair if two people sit on it, its just being used to fill a function other than its primary function. It would however cease to be a chair if its intended design is to hold two or more people.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
What would you call something like this, then (besides fugly as all get out)?
[ February 26, 2009, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: What would you call something like this, then (besides fugly as all get out)?
Two chairs welded together?
The fact that we haven't invented a single word for two chairs that are attached to each other (or 5 or 20 chairs attached to each other) doesn't mean that they aren't in a category distinctly different from individual chairs.
You have to draw a line somewhere.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Clearly whoever designed that had a run in with the heroin chair
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:(Here's a more artistic version)
More artistic perhaps but I would argue with more aesthetically pleasing.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
True, I get a little tingle from the chair that was made from Gumby that I don't get from the disembodied tongue.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for reading positions, do you find your biggest problem is that your arms start to hurt when they are bent for long periods of time?
No, my problems with reading positions are typically back and neck strain not arms.
I usually read lying down, so I just roll over to my stomach if my arms begin to hurt.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)