As a matter of fact, I'm curious to learn about the whole chain for as long as you're comfortable sharing it. You see, this is why I don't argue about basic things with people: they turn the argument into "what is <subject>, even?" instead of relying on the informal understanding of it that most human beings seem to possess. I don't think it's ever a viable conversation to have because it refuses the conversees the actual opportunity to explore the subject, as opposed to a pedantic (and likely unsuccessful one). I'm not saying there's no value in defining terms of argument: I'm saying sometimes it is unnecessary and, perhaps, impossible beyond the intuitive scope that many possess.The background for this opinion involves a chain of reasoning that is very long, circuitous, and speculative, so probably beyond the scope of this discussion :)
First, it's very hard to even ask the question in a rigorous way.