NationStates Jolt Archive

Philosophize here. A question to bewilder the mind, mayhaps? Let's whell the greases and start off.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken would have had to evolve from a different animal, but it would have originally come from an egg, which would have come from a chicken like creature. And in each succesive generation slight unidentifiable evolution.

And the mind boggles.....

If a duck claps in the forrest, and nobody is there to see it, what colour is it?

If a man speaks and a woman is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?

If a duck claps in the forrest, and nobody is there to see it, what colour is it?

And smell, and taste, and so forth...

It's pink with green spots, smells like a strong cologne with a hint of tobacco, and it tastes stupendous.

Or does it?????????????

If a man speaks and a woman is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?

And if a man drives a car, and there isn't a female backseat driver, does he get home on time for once?

If a man speaks and a woman is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?
Indubitably! :D

Well there is always dualism, which is that the mind and the physical brain are not one but two seperate entitys. Thats it in a nut-shell anyway. Also some people apply it to reality, like to say that there are two separate realitys. I can't really elaborate on that.

As an existentialist atheist, I consider searches for meaning a futile gesture which defines humanity.

Philosophize here. A question to bewilder the mind, mayhaps? Let's whell the greases and start off.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken would have had to evolve from a different animal, but it would have originally come from an egg, which would have come from a chicken like creature. And in each succesive generation slight unidentifiable evolution.

And the mind boggles.....The egg obviously. A chicken cannot be a chicken if didn't lay eggs, because it'd be a cock. Whereas an egg is still and egg, no matter what hatches from it.

The egg obviously. A chicken cannot be a chicken if didn't lay eggs, because it'd be a cock. Whereas an egg is still and egg, no matter what hatches from it.

then where did the egg come from?!?!?

As all Eukaryots evolved from Procista (Probably mispelled, but meh.) The organism came before the offspring with a hard exoskeleton. (OK, so technically it aint an exoskeleton, but still.)

then where did the egg come from?!?!?A dinosaur.

Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?
Why?Why?Why?Why?
Why?Why?Why?
Why?Why?
Why?

Philosophize here. A question to bewilder the mind, mayhaps? Let's whell the greases and start off.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken would have had to evolve from a different animal, but it would have originally come from an egg, which would have come from a chicken like creature. And in each succesive generation slight unidentifiable evolution.

And the mind boggles.....

Eggs. Animals have been laying eggs long before chickens evolved. Case closed.

Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?
Why?Why?Why?Why?
Why?Why?Why?
Why?Why?
Why?

Why not?

Here's one that nags at me from time to time.

Assume that there's a being with technological abilities far beyond ours. It would be able to program an AI, or many, that don't know that they are AI's. It would be able to create a world for them, etc. This is not terribly original, and the question there is, how do we know we are not this AI?

My question takes it a bit further. Would this being also be able to program already existing memories into the AI, so that when it comes online, it would be convinced it had already exists?

The question here is, how do I know I existed five minutes ago?

Here's a conundrum for you to ponder [ Quoted from the book "You Just Don't Understand!" ]:

Eve had a lump removed from her breast. Shortly after the operation, talking to her sister, she said that she found it upsetting to hve been cut into, and that looking at the stitches was distressing because they left a seam that had changed the contour of her breast. Her sister said, "I know. When I had my operation I felt the same way." Eve made the same opbservation to her friend Karen, who said, "I know. It's like your body has been violated." But when she told her husband, Mark, how she felt, he said, "You can have plactic surgery to cover up the scar and restore the shape of your breast."

Mark's comment upset Eve. "I'm not having any more surgery! I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks!"

Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care," he protested. "It doesn't bother me at all." She asked, "Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" He answered, "Because you were saying YOU were upset about the way it looked."

What happened here???

Here's one that nags at me from time to time.

Assume that there's a being with technological abilities far beyond ours. It would be able to program an AI, or many, that don't know that they are AI's. It would be able to create a world for them, etc. This is not terribly original, and the question there is, how do we know we are not this AI?

My question takes it a bit further. Would this being also be able to program already existing memories into the AI, so that when it comes online, it would be convinced it had already exists?

The question here is, how do I know I existed five minutes ago?
You don't. That is because you are simply a figment of my own imagination. [ I've been concerned lately about my imagination. I should have it looked it. ] :D

You don't. That is because you are simply a figment of my own imagination. [ I've been concerned lately about my imagination. I should have it looked it. ] :D

Or surgically removed.! :)

*snip*

You know too much, I'm sorry. It didn't have to be this way.

Here's a conundrum for you to ponder [ Quoted from the book "You Just Don't Understand!" ]:

Eve had a lump removed from her breast. Shortly after the operation, talking to her sister, she said that she found it upsetting to hve been cut into, and that looking at the stitches was distressing because they left a seam that had changed the contour of her breast. Her sister said, "I know. When I had my operation I felt the same way." Eve made the same opbservation to her friend Karen, who said, "I know. It's like your body has been violated." But when she told her husband, Mark, how she felt, he said, "You can have plactic surgery to cover up the scar and restore the shape of your breast."

Mark's comment upset Eve. "I'm not having any more surgery! I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks!"

Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care," he protested. "It doesn't bother me at all." She asked, "Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" He answered, "Because you were saying YOU were upset about the way it looked."

What happened here???

I'm guessing she was looking for sympathy rather than a solution. Or is there a punchline? ;)

As an existentialist atheist, I consider searches for meaning a futile gesture which defines humanity.

Could you do me the favour of defining "existential", from your point of veiw?

You can't trust any bugger further than you can throw him, and there's nothing you can do about it, so let's have a drink.
Shamelessly stolen from the philosophers of Discworld

Here's a conundrum for you to ponder [ Quoted from the book "You Just Don't Understand!" ]:

Eve had a lump removed from her breast. Shortly after the operation, talking to her sister, she said that she found it upsetting to hve been cut into, and that looking at the stitches was distressing because they left a seam that had changed the contour of her breast. Her sister said, "I know. When I had my operation I felt the same way." Eve made the same opbservation to her friend Karen, who said, "I know. It's like your body has been violated." But when she told her husband, Mark, how she felt, he said, "You can have plactic surgery to cover up the scar and restore the shape of your breast."

Mark's comment upset Eve. "I'm not having any more surgery! I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks!"

Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care," he protested. "It doesn't bother me at all." She asked, "Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" He answered, "Because you were saying YOU were upset about the way it looked."

What happened here???

Over-sensitive person having oversensitive output regardless of the content of the input.

Philosophize here. A question to bewilder the mind, mayhaps? Let's whell the greases and start off.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken would have had to evolve from a different animal, but it would have originally come from an egg, which would have come from a chicken like creature. And in each succesive generation slight unidentifiable evolution.

And the mind boggles.....
There is no answer, as the question is not intended to have an answer; the intent is an analogy of the eternal loop within the context of cause and effect: the chicken creates the egg, but in turn came from the egg.

Here's one that nags at me from time to time.

Assume that there's a being with technological abilities far beyond ours. It would be able to program an AI, or many, that don't know that they are AI's. It would be able to create a world for them, etc. This is not terribly original, and the question there is, how do we know we are not this AI?
Does it matter?

My question takes it a bit further. Would this being also be able to program already existing memories into the AI, so that when it comes online, it would be convinced it had already exists?

The question here is, how do I know I existed five minutes ago?
Again, does it matter? You're here now.

There is no answer

There is an answer. The egg came first, obviously. How could a chicken exist without an egg from which it was produced?

Or surgically removed.! :)
LOL! Um ... is such a thing possible? :confused:

Over-sensitive person having oversensitive output regardless of the content of the input.
Nope. Nice try, but no cigar. :)

Here's a conundrum for you to ponder [ Quoted from the book "You Just Don't Understand!" ]:

Eve had a lump removed from her breast. Shortly after the operation, talking to her sister, she said that she found it upsetting to hve been cut into, and that looking at the stitches was distressing because they left a seam that had changed the contour of her breast. Her sister said, "I know. When I had my operation I felt the same way." Eve made the same opbservation to her friend Karen, who said, "I know. It's like your body has been violated." But when she told her husband, Mark, how she felt, he said, "You can have plactic surgery to cover up the scar and restore the shape of your breast."

Mark's comment upset Eve. "I'm not having any more surgery! I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks!"

Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care," he protested. "It doesn't bother me at all." She asked, "Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" He answered, "Because you were saying YOU were upset about the way it looked."

What happened here???
Ooh! This is like "5 Minute Mysteries"...

I think the solution is that Mark was focusing on the breast, when he should have been focusing on the person. ;) I mean, he caught the remark about the changed contour, that registered, but he missed the remark about being cut into.

I'm going to aproach this as two separate questions:

Here's one that nags at me from time to time.

Assume that there's a being with technological abilities far beyond ours. It would be able to program an AI, or many, that don't know that they are AI's. It would be able to create a world for them, etc. This is not terribly original, and the question there is, how do we know we are not this AI?

Well, considering "artificial" usually means man-made, this being could not create AI :P. However, taken to simply mean made by an entity, this is essentially the exact same question as "How do we know we aren't created by God/s". Well, we don't know for absolutely sure, but our best bet is to look for empirical evidence and look for the simplest explanation.

My question takes it a bit further. Would this being also be able to program already existing memories into the AI, so that when it comes online, it would be convinced it had already exists?

The question here is, how do I know I existed five minutes ago?

Ahhhh, which goes to show that our online proof that time exists at all is chemical symbolism (memory) and the aparent motion of objects through space. If I see a ball moving how do I know that the universe isn't static and that the prior moments memory of it moving isn't fabricated :)

I often wonder if all of reality is only the product of common biases amongst the human race. Maybe our predeliction for order and symmetry has caused us misinterpret everything around us.

But then I realize that it doesn't matter when I put down the bong.

There is an answer. The egg came first, obviously. How could a chicken exist without an egg from which it was produced?
Then where did the egg come from that produced the chicken?

I'm guessing she was looking for sympathy rather than a solution. Or is there a punchline? ;)
You're very close Grasshopper. No punchline. It's definitely no joke to thousands of men and women who have to confront this misunderstanding on a daily basis.

It has to do with perception, intent, expectations and differences in communication.

Nope. Nice try, but no cigar. :)

You've made up a proper answer?

I expect the answer that society would typically accept would be that the woman doesn't want the man to fix her problems, but to just listen empathetically.

I often wonder if all of reality is only the product of common biases amongst the human race. Maybe our predeliction for order and symmetry has caused us misinterpret everything around us.

But then I realize that it doesn't matter when I put down the bong.
Hehehe! That does have a tendency to alter your perceptions a bit. :)

My philosophy: "Life is good. Eat it up."

Does it matter?


Again, does it matter? You're here now.

Ah, but if my memories are a fundamental part of my personality, how can I ignore the fact that they may not be real.

Actually, doesn't really matter, any more than a tree falling in an empty forest with nobody being able to hear it making a noise or not.

Or any number of other such questions.

Then where did the egg come from that produced the chicken?

A chicken-like creature, which was the precursor to the chicken.

You're very close Grasshopper. No punchline. It's definitely no joke to thousands of men and women who have to confront this misunderstanding on a daily basis.

It has to do with perception, intent, expectations and differences in communication.

When a woman makes a statement like that it's because she wants to be able to talk about the problem, without neccessarily finding a solution.

When a man hears her talk about a problem his immediate response is to try and find a solution to the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As a result, women view men as insensitive and men view women as mad and unpredictable. In conclusion: God has a really nasty sense of humour.

Ah, but if my memories are a fundamental part of my personality, how can I ignore the fact that they may not be real.

Actually, doesn't really matter, any more than a tree falling in an empty forest with nobody being able to hear it making a noise or not.

Or any number of other such questions.
To whom are they not real? If they are your memories and a fundamental part of you, then don't they define what it real to you?

It's not so much that they have no reality, but that you are looking for reality apart from you. If they are you, you needn't look for reality apart from you. You know what I mean?

A chicken-like creature, which was the precursor to the chicken.
Evolution doesn't work that way. It takes many generations before a species can said to have become a different species than a precusor species.

Evolution doesn't work that way. It takes many generations before a species can said to have become a different species than a precusor species.

It takes many generations for an entire species to evolve into another species. But an individual can become another species in one generation.

Evolution doesn't work that way. It takes many generations before a species can said to have become a different species than a precusor species.

Nevertheless, there would have had to be one generation that was not yet considered fully chicken, and one that was, and they would need to be next to each other.

If anyone wants I can probably think up a creationist reason why the egg came first too.

You've made up a proper answer?

I expect the answer that society would typically accept would be that the woman doesn't want the man to fix her problems, but to just listen empathetically.
Quoting the author, Dr. Tannen:

"Mark thought he was reassuring her that she needn't feel bad about her scar because there was something she could do about it. Eve heard his suggestion about the scar as evidence that he was bothered about it. Whereas she wanted reassurance that it was normal to feel bad in her situation, his telling her that the problem could easily be fixed implied she had no right to feel bad about it."

Men and women ... talking past each other. It's a wonder we can ever get to the point of actually mating. Surprising the entire race didn't die out long ago, yes? :D

If anyone wants I can probably think up a creationist reason why the egg came first too.

Because God said so? :)

When a woman makes a statement like that it's because she wants to be able to talk about the problem, without neccessarily finding a solution.

When a man hears her talk about a problem his immediate response is to try and find a solution to the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As a result, women view men as insensitive and men view women as mad and unpredictable. In conclusion: God has a really nasty sense of humour.
LOL! Either that or evolution was trying to tell us that we are in desperate need of each other. :)

You're very close Grasshopper. No punchline. It's definitely no joke to thousands of men and women who have to confront this misunderstanding on a daily basis.

It has to do with perception, intent, expectations and differences in communication.

It has to do with utility vs. futility. Basically that story is saying that men provide solutions when you tell them something and woman just want to tell someone and have them sit there with an expression of understanding. One attempts to fix the problem the other uses the problem to make conversation and connections and gets angry when it is pointed out that the problem isn't really a problem at all because it devalues the connections made in response to it.

Rather sexist.

I don't feel like it has to be this way it is just like that in our society. Some people just like wallowing in sympathy more than others. To a point everyone likes to do this. You don't want a friend that just suggests answers when you vent about something you want them to just be like damn that sucks sometimes. For some reason women are taught that they should give comfort all the time instead of trying to solve the problem. This is important but it is also way overdone and thus "drama". It is nurture not nature in these cases. Sympathy has its place but both men and woman have to realize you only deserve a certain amount of it before you should just solve the problem. If you taught men to be provided for and to just sympathize and be emotional in response to problems they would be more like that than they are now. Instead society tells women that this is their role and so they tend to fill it more than men. If you notice there are many exceptions and thus proof that it is nurture and not nature.

Nevertheless, there would have had to be one generation that was not yet considered fully chicken, and one that was, and they would need to be next to each other.
No, there doesn't, actually. There could be many generations of "link" between one species and the next.

If anyone wants I can probably think up a creationist reason why the egg came first too.
Go for it!

Because God said so? :)

Well, if we look at the Judeo-Christian creation story, fish, which lay eggs, were created before chickens, and likely to lay eggs first.

With any that deal with all species being created about the same time, insects with relatively short lifespans would probably have laid eggs before chickens.

And so on.

Rather sexist.
Tell it to the author, Dr. Deborah Tannen. :D

Tell it to the author, Dr. Deborah Tannen. :D

I would but I doubt she would listen because she makes a shitload of money on reinforcing the foolish notion that women are all one way and men are all the other way.

No, there doesn't, actually. There could be many generations of "link" between one species and the next.

Ah, but if the "link" is not a chicken, the last generation of the "link" applies to what I was saying. Besides, the creature before the link would probably be laying eggs before the chicken existed.


Go for it!

Already done.

If a man speaks and a woman is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?

Of course! It's just that there is nobody there to tell him about it...

Ah, but if the "link" is not a chicken, the last generation of the "link" applies to what I was saying. Besides, the creature before the link would probably be laying eggs before the chicken existed.
The links are not a different species than their immediate children or their immediate parents. If they were, they could not reproduce and the line would end there.

The links are not a different species than their immediate children or their immediate parents.

Hmm, even if that's true, (I'm no evolutionary expert,) there's still my second point.

The links are not a different species than their immediate children or their immediate parents. If they were, they could not reproduce and the line would end there.

There is a point where something is no longer a "link" but a new species. That's where the difference between species x and species y is.

I am thinking logically.

Disprove me :D

YAY PHILOSOPHY!

Hmm, even if that's true, (I'm no evolutionary expert,) there's still my second point.
Well, for your second point, it just avoids the question by taking it out of context. The question is posed to present a zen-like puzzle of a continuous loop from individual to individual.

There is a point where something is no longer a "link" but a new species. That's where the difference between species x and species y is.
But that assessment is arbitrary. If we look at the line of horses extending from small pawwed creatures to the large hooved ones we have now, we can pick any point in the line and say, "this species is different from this one X generations hence." Any point.

Edit: they are all "links". Even you and me.

The term "species" is a human costruct that is usefull for classification, but one must realise that mother nature does not respect it. Link species can be observed even today, ie there is a salamander in California that has a broad range, at either end of that range any two salamanders can not breed with each other, however their intermediarys can and do breed with the populations at both extremities. If the intermediaries had died out long ago, we would without a second thought class the salamander as two separate species. There is a similar sitaution with a type of gull, On a beach in N.America there are type A and B gulls, as you follow type A westward the genetic qualities gradually change untill you have circumnavigated the globe, at which point the type A gulls have become type B. Type A can not breed with type B, but they can both breed with the intermediaries. The intermediaries are not hybridizations, this is speciation in action. The difference between chicken and proto-chicken is only a human one, that is an idea of "chickeness".

But that assessment is arbitrary.

Of course it's arbitrary. But given a bunch of proto-chickens, you can pick the first one that matches the arbitrary definition of a chicken, and say that it was the first chicken. The egg from which it came would then contain the first chicken, so the egg came first.

Here's one that nags at me from time to time.

Assume that there's a being with technological abilities far beyond ours. It would be able to program an AI, or many, that don't know that they are AI's. It would be able to create a world for them, etc. This is not terribly original, and the question there is, how do we know we are not this AI?

My question takes it a bit further. Would this being also be able to program already existing memories into the AI, so that when it comes online, it would be convinced it had already exists?

The question here is, how do I know I existed five minutes ago?

The traditional Cartesian hyperbolic doubt but without the God nonsense Descartes used to get out of it. There is no way you can know. There is no way I can know that you aren't just part of the program that gave me this information for an experiment to see if I'd realize this is all an illusion. But since there is no way to know whether you and your life are what they appear to be, or you are an AI program in some supercomputer, or an engineered brain in a tank on an alien world; you just have to ask yourself how you want to live. If you are doing what you want (as I am) it doesn't matter whether your life is real or an illusion.

Could you do me the favour of defining "existential", from your point of veiw?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424602

Looong thread, but it is a very good read and contains Eutrusca. :p

Of course it's arbitrary. But given a bunch of proto-chickens, you can pick the first one that matches the arbitrary definition of a chicken, and say that it was the first chicken. The egg from which it came would then contain the first chicken, so the egg came first.
But then you could equally arbitrarily say that the first chicken egg was produced by a chicken, the first chicken in the species.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424602

Looong thread, but it is a very good read and contains Eutrusca. :p

It has Eut in it!?

*dives into the thread*

Just curious, do any of you have a particular philosopher you prefer. Personally I like Plato and Decartes.

But then you could equally arbitrarily say that the first chicken egg was produced by a chicken, the first chicken in the species.

No, you can't. You have a line of links from the proto-chicken:

proto-chicken --> link 1 --> link 2 --> link 3 --> etc.

Now, according to your arbitrary definition of what constitutes a "chicken," you pick one of the links and say that "this one is the first true chicken in this chain." This chicken, then, must have come from a proto-chicken parent, because you just claimed that it was the first true chicken in the chain. It must also have come from an egg because true chickens must come from eggs. Therefore, the egg from which it came was the first egg to produce a "chicken," so the egg came first. QED. :)

Well, for your second point, it just avoids the question by taking it out of context. The question is posed to present a zen-like puzzle of a continuous loop from individual to individual.

It avoids the question of which came first? Anyways, nothing wrong with Zen.

Just curious, do any of you have a particular philosopher you prefer. Personally I like Plato and Decartes.

My favorite philosopher is definitely Nietzsche. Plato is one of the only two philosophers that I'd read for pleasure (as opposed to analyzing the concepts) the other being Nietzsche; but I don't really agree with Plato on anything. I both love and hate Kant. I find Hume very agreeable. Spinoza is very interesting. For philosophers I dislike; I really hate every philosopher of the Scholastic tradition except Aquinas (to whom I am indifferent). I hate Berkley (some of his assertions amount to "you can't prove otherwise"). I dislike Heidegger since he is both challenging and unsatisfying.

Of course it's arbitrary. But given a bunch of proto-chickens, you can pick the first one that matches the arbitrary definition of a chicken, and say that it was the first chicken. The egg from which it came would then contain the first chicken, so the egg came first.

The problem with that line of thought is that even with modern chickens, not all of them manifest all of the qualities associated with "chickeness". Thus you can say if it has these birds have these qualities they are chickens, but may express those qualities only in some populations, or even intermitantly in the same population, or say there is a mutant that lack something "chickeny" does he ceae to be a chicken. Another problem is that other reproductively isolated relatives may express more "chickeny" qualities than certain breed of chicken, ie a large quail, or a stubby pheasant.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424602

Looong thread, but it is a very good read and contains Eutrusca. :p

Actually for my purposes I needed your definition, not the consensus, thanks for answering though.

*snip*

There is an arbitrary definition of "chicken" that allows any individual to be classified as a "chicken" or not a "chicken." It doesn't matter what the definition of a chicken is, or that some animals exhibit more "chicken-like" qualities than other. According to any definition of chicken, the egg must have come first.

My Personal Philosophy Which I Made Up By Myself: Fighting Fire With Fire Makes The Fire Grow Bigger.

There is an arbitrary definition of "chicken" that allows any individual to be classified as a "chicken" or not a "chicken." It doesn't matter what the definition of a chicken is, or that some animals exhibit more "chicken-like" qualities than other. According to any definition of chicken, the egg must have come first.

Lets try this a different way:
The definition of chicken is a mass of qualities determined by genes, the further back you go the ancestors become less and less related, the difference between chickens and proto-chickens is not a line but a matter of % in common. At what point do you consider an ancestor a non-chicken? And does it matter that it still has a huge % of traits in common with the proto-chickens? Mind you with the case of humans we have something like 98% (or more) in common with chimps, but we still have 80% in common with cattle and whales. And what if two individuals have much less than 98% in common, but can still breed viably? Are they separate species? What if the species in question is asexual, does only 1 gene mutation lead to it being a new species? The truth is a species is a human created "puff-ball" of traits, you can define where the "puff-ball" is, but you can not say fro certain where it isn't.

Now look, I don't see why this is so difficult. The egg came first, as there were egg laying creatures before there were chickens. Really people.

Now look, I don't see why this is so difficult. The egg came first, as there were egg laying creatures before there were chickens. Really people.

Is anyone disaggreeing with me on that point?

There is an arbitrary definition of "chicken" that allows any individual to be classified as a "chicken" or not a "chicken." It doesn't matter what the definition of a chicken is, or that some animals exhibit more "chicken-like" qualities than other. According to any definition of chicken, the egg must have come first.

OBJECTION!! Suppose I were to define a chicken as the creature that produced the first hard-shelled egg? Then the Chicken came first, irregardless of the fact that that definition of a 'chicken' encompasses far too many modern species to be resonable at this point. However, this inevitably raises the question: How do you define an EGG??

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken would have had to evolve from a different animal, but it would have originally come from an egg, which would have come from a chicken like creature. And in each succesive generation slight unidentifiable evolution.



Well, you eat egg at the morning and chicken to supper, so obviosly God created the egg first :)

Is anyone disaggreeing with me on that point?

Well judging by the amount of arguement...

Probably.

OBJECTION!! Suppose I were to define a chicken as the creature that produced the first hard-shelled egg? Then the Chicken came first, irregardless of the fact that that definition of a 'chicken' encompasses far too many modern species to be resonable at this point. However, this inevitably raises the question: How do you define an EGG??

If that works than I defined a chicken as a way eggs can reproduce, and eggs as any life form whatsoever.... did this just get cracked out?

OBJECTION!! Suppose I were to define a chicken as the creature that produced the first hard-shelled egg? Then the Chicken came first, irregardless of the fact that that definition of a 'chicken' encompasses far too many modern species to be resonable at this point. However, this inevitably raises the question: How do you define an EGG??


*Ahem* According to any reasonable definition, the chicken would have come first. Chicken=bird, yes?

Dinosaurs laid hard shelled eggs before birds existed.

Well judging by the amount of arguement...

Probably.

I think the arguing has become about "what is a chicken?"

Then where did the egg come from that produced the chicken?

I believe the progenitor of the creature we call 'chicken' today, was the 'Red Jungle Fowl'.

Thus, the chicken (being a relatively new invention) cannot have predated the egg, since something nominally still 'Jungle Fowl' must have laid the egg that first could be considered 'chicken'.

I think the arguing has become about "what is a chicken?"

Ahh...

I don't suppose hauling out the dictionaries would help?

Evolution doesn't work that way. It takes many generations before a species can said to have become a different species than a precusor species.

Which is irrelevent.

Lets try this a different way:
The definition of chicken is a mass of qualities determined by genes, the further back you go the ancestors become less and less related, the difference between chickens and proto-chickens is not a line but a matter of % in common. At what point do you consider an ancestor a non-chicken? And does it matter that it still has a huge % of traits in common with the proto-chickens? Mind you with the case of humans we have something like 98% (or more) in common with chimps, but we still have 80% in common with cattle and whales. And what if two individuals have much less than 98% in common, but can still breed viably? Are they separate species? What if the species in question is asexual, does only 1 gene mutation lead to it being a new species? The truth is a species is a human created "puff-ball" of traits, you can define where the "puff-ball" is, but you can not say fro certain where it isn't.

Let's try this a different way. Assume that the criteria for a chicken are, for example:


Has two legs.
Has two eyes.
Has the gene sequence ATCGGGATC at locus 213432.
Is insanely awesome.

Now, you go back through all the links in the chain. It is a chicken iff it meets all the criteria mentioned above. So, using the above list, a human would be 75% identical to a chicken, but not a chicken. A snake would be 50% identical to a chicken, but not a chicken. A proto-chicken may be 99.99% identical to the first chicken, but still not be a chicken. The point is that the definition of a "chicken" includes items that are measurable. If a organism does not meet all the criteria for a chicken, then it is not a chicken. Some humans may have slight genetic variation between them (eye color, skin color, left/right-handedness, etc.) but still be considered human because they meet all the criteria for a human. Chimpanzees, while they have a lot in common with us, would not be considered human because (for example) the gene that controls the amount of hair is different in cimpanzees than in humans. It is not the amount of genes in common, but if the genes match the set of specifications required for induction into a certain species.

Ahh...

I don't suppose hauling out the dictionaries would help?

I don't honestly think it would..... ti could only define it using the classification system and a mention of its qualities, which wouldn't be viable to separate it from its proto-chicken ancestors.

Maybe the reason everything tastes like chicken is because EVERYTHING is chicken!

What is Perfection?

Begoned,

Has two legs.- I saw a chicken in Costa Rica with four legs and no wings.

Has two eyes.-See above for how things can go terribly wrong.

Has the gene sequence ATCGGGATC at locus 213432.- The problem is that any gene sequence that is so fundamental to being a chicken so that all chickens must have it, will be so fundamental that a multitude of animals will also possess it. If it is fundamental its ancestors and a great amount of relatives (and possibly non relatives) will possess it. If it is not fundamental, then there will be natural variation of the sequence within the chicken stock.

Is insanely awesome.- What if it is a dorky chicken?

Has two legs.- I saw a chicken in Costa Rica with four legs and no wings.

Do you think that the chicken could reproduce with other chickens and pass on its mutations? I think not. It's not a chicken. If it cannot reproduce with other members of its species, it is not in that species.

Has two eyes.-See above for how things can go terribly wrong.

See above for how that is terribly wrong. :)

Has the gene sequence ATCGGGATC at locus 213432.- The problem is that any gene sequence that is so fundamental to being a chicken so that all chickens must have it, will be so fundamental that a multitude of animals will also possess it. If it is fundamental its ancestors and a great amount of relatives (and possibly non relatives) will possess it. If it is not fundamental, then there will be natural variation of the sequence within the chicken stock.

That's not the point. Maybe platypuses also have that same gene sequence. But platypuses are quite cool, not insanely cool. The point is that it has to meet all the criteria, not just a select few, to be considered a chicken. Many will possess the gene sequence, but will not match all the other characteristics.

Is insanely awesome.- What if it is a dorky chicken?

Yes, I overlooked that. I stand corrected.

Do you think that the chicken could reproduce with other chickens and pass on its mutations? I think not. It's not a chicken. If it cannot reproduce with other members of its species, it is not in that species.



See above for how that is terribly wrong. :)



That's not the point. Maybe platypuses also have that same gene sequence. But platypuses are quite cool, not insanely cool. The point is that it has to meet all the criteria, not just a select few, to be considered a chicken. Many will possess the gene sequence, but will not match all the other characteristics.



Yes, I overlooked that. I stand corrected.

I think we're at a stale-mate regarding the gene sequencing, because the chicken's genetic code has not been mapped (nor all it's relatives). I think you might be able to find some universal human sequences, but then I would expect you would; we are the last species in our genera and in our family, theres simply no close relatives (as for chimps, 98% is a huge gap when doing genetics). I doubt such a case would hold true for the majority of animal species however. The fundamental sequences (such as the homeobox), tend not to be absolutely neccesary to any given creature, but to life in general.

That said, I've often wondered what the greatest % of unrelated genes was between creatures, and what two organisms those are.

I think we're at a stale-mate

Very well, then. I offer a draw. :)

That said, I've often wondered what the greatest % of unrelated genes was between creatures, and what two organisms those are.

I'd have to go with the first true cell and humans, but that's purely a guess and probably completely wrong.

Very well, then. I offer a draw. :)

begrudgingly accepted.....for now. :)

But only regarding the genetic similarity way of defining a species, the viable breeding partner way is outdated.

I'd have to go with the first true cell and humans, but that's purely a guess and probably completely wrong.

Hmmm, I say use two species that have reproduced rapidly (speeds up evolution) and diverted evolutionarily almost immediatley after the hypothetical first cell. So probably some insect lifeform and an archeobacteria.

In other news did you know scientist are trying to reconstruct that "first cell"? They are taking bacterias and other simple cells, and removing stuff bit by bit and seeing if it still works, then they continue to take stuff out. Kind of neat, eh? Read about it in Discover I believe.

Hmmm, I say use two species that have reproduced rapidly (speeds up evolution) and diverted evolutionarily almost immediatley after the hypothetical first cell. So probably some insect lifeform and an archeobacteria.

Yeah, that's probably the way to go about it. The only things they'd have in common are the basic essentials of life that tie them to the first true cell.

In other news did you know scientist are trying to reconstruct that "first cell"? They are taking bacterias and other simple cells, and removing stuff bit by bit and seeing if it still works, then they continue to take stuff out. Kind of neat, eh? Read about it in Discover I believe.

That's a pretty cool job -- dissect stuff until it doesn't work anymore. It would be a great help to evolutionary biologists and the like to see how life started. Very interesting experiment.

Ok, say you ran a tube through the Earth (nobody say you couldn't run a tube through the Earth because im just asking and don't want that response) so you climb this tube and throw a ball in it. the tube runs from one side of the earth to the other vertically. What would happen to the ball?

________________________________________________________

What would happen if an unstoppable force hit an unmovable object ( assuming that would be possible)

Ok, say you ran a tube through the Earth (nobody say you couldn't run a tube through the Earth because im just asking and don't want that response) so you climb this tube and throw a ball in it. the tube runs from one side of the earth to the other vertically. What would happen to the ball?

The ball would go from one side to the other and eventually get stuck in the middle.

What would happen if an unstoppable force hit an unmovable object ( assuming that would be possible)

The force would go through the object. :)

OK, I got two:

1) The only thing that seperates stuff is language. If there were no 'words' arbitrarily assigned to stuff, would we not regard everything as just one thing?
2) (this isn't mine, but I like it anyway) As AI advances, we can make pretty sweet simulations. Its even possible that in the future, we'll be able to simulate entire worlds so real that the people in them are self aware. These people will undoubtedly make simulations of their own. Therefore, since there could be infinite simulated universes, each one regarding itself as real, isn't it more likely that we're one of many simulated worlds than the one simulated one?

Can our own eyes perceive faster than light travel? I guess it's better to ask if a person was in a faster than light craft, what would they see? Or could they see anything at all outside the craft? They are going at a speed faster than what they can perceive...

The ball would go from one side to the other and eventually get stuck in the middle.


It would have to have a TON of force to not just stop in the middle due to gravity and continue going to the other side. I don't think anyone could throw a ball that fast or find a ball that massive.

I'm sorry for not combining these; can I go back and edit posts? I wasn't sure.


1) The only thing that seperates stuff is language. If there were no 'words' arbitrarily assigned to stuff, would we not regard everything as just one thing?


There's an African tribe with a language that doesn't have numbers, or any way of measuring things quantitatively. Interesting to think about: to a great extent, language defines our thoughts because it provides boundaries to them. Anyone read 1984, for example?

How many undiscovered thoughts are there just because we don't have words for them yet? It hurts my head to think about.

OK, I got two:

1) The only thing that seperates stuff is language. If there were no 'words' arbitrarily assigned to stuff, would we not regard everything as just one thing?
2) (this isn't mine, but I like it anyway) As AI advances, we can make pretty sweet simulations. Its even possible that in the future, we'll be able to simulate entire worlds so real that the people in them are self aware. These people will undoubtedly make simulations of their own. Therefore, since there could be infinite simulated universes, each one regarding itself as real, isn't it more likely that we're one of many simulated worlds than the one simulated one?

1) Words are not all that separates objects, dogs can recognise objects just fine. Sometimes do regard everything as all one thing, when we do we call it the universe.

2) Said "universes" would not carry on indefinitely, each progressive "universe" would have less resources (electricity to power it, computational power, etc) to run it as it is a finite smaller portion of the un/simulated universe that created it, eventually not having enough power to run a viable simulation. The odds can not be calculated without at least demonstrating the phenomena is possible, if it is than yes the amount of worlds goes up...... Sort of. It's sort of like saying there are more mirrors in the universe when you hold two mirrors opposite each other; the new worlds are still a part of the old and really just a continuation thereof.

Can our own eyes perceive faster than light travel? I guess it's better to ask if a person was in a faster than light craft, what would they see? Or could they see anything at all outside the craft? They are going at a speed faster than what they can perceive...


In a spaceship:
Looking forward: If there were any photons or atoms ahead
of you, it would blind you as you crash into the light ahead
causing extreme intensity.

Looking back: The image that was there would remain there, as
the light from that source can't pass you or be left behind.

Watching an object:
Coming toward you: You would not see it as it would arrive at
the same time its image would, you would be hit and never know
it.

Traveling away from you: This actually confuses me a bit, I
assume the light would red shift out of visible range and again
you wouldn't see it. As for whether the light can reach you, I'm
puzzled, for every increment it travels away the light it caused
would travel an equal increment toward you, what would that look
like in RL?

No, you can't. You have a line of links from the proto-chicken:

proto-chicken --> link 1 --> link 2 --> link 3 --> etc.

Now, according to your arbitrary definition of what constitutes a "chicken," you pick one of the links and say that "this one is the first true chicken in this chain." This chicken, then, must have come from a proto-chicken parent, because you just claimed that it was the first true chicken in the chain. It must also have come from an egg because true chickens must come from eggs. Therefore, the egg from which it came was the first egg to produce a "chicken," so the egg came first. QED. :)
But the links are chickens and proto-chickens; that's why they are called "links". You cannot say a chicken was born from a non-chicken, and my purpose in pointing out the arbitrariness of defining a first individual as the beginning of such a species was to emphasize how wrong it was.
:D

It's more like:

proto-chicken (1/8 chicken as we'll say it spawned 8 other species) --> link (proto-chicken, 1/4 chicken) --> link (proto-chicken, 1/2 chicken) --> link (proto-chicken, 3/4 chicken) --> chicken (still some percentage proto-chicken).

There is an arbitrary definition of "chicken" that allows any individual to be classified as a "chicken" or not a "chicken." It doesn't matter what the definition of a chicken is, or that some animals exhibit more "chicken-like" qualities than other. According to any definition of chicken, the egg must have come first.
But then, the egg came from somewhere just as "chickeny". There is no arbitrary starting point for a species in one individual.

I believe the progenitor of the creature we call 'chicken' today, was the 'Red Jungle Fowl'.

Thus, the chicken (being a relatively new invention) cannot have predated the egg, since something nominally still 'Jungle Fowl' must have laid the egg that first could be considered 'chicken'.
No. Evolution does not address individuals, only species.

Maybe the reason everything tastes like chicken is because EVERYTHING is chicken!
LOL! Booya.

Do you think that the chicken could reproduce with other chickens and pass on its mutations? I think not. It's not a chicken. If it cannot reproduce with other members of its species, it is not in that species.
That's exactly right, and one individual born that meets the criteria arbitrarily chosen to define "chicken" post-humously is not a species, either. It *will* mate.

My favorite philosopher is definitely Nietzsche.

Will to power, I can't wait to start reading about him. So far we've been covering a series of philosophers I can't stand. Hsun Tzu, Mencius, Hume, Freud, Rousseau, the list goes on.

We haven't touched on Confucious, Seneca, or Nietzsche yet which really boils my kettle.

No. Evolution does not address individuals, only species.

Again... irrelevent.

All of our modern 'chickens' come from Red Jungle Fowl, originally. Through the gradual process that 'evolved' them to our modern 'chickens', the reproduction was (one imagines) largely 'egg-based', and proceded in a very much 'parent-lays-egg-which-hatches-to-produce-young' manner.

Thus, overall... ALL of the eggs in the before the advent of 'chickens' were actually the eggs of Red Jungle Fowl, and all of the offspring in any given generation that could truly be called 'chickens' must have been hatched as 'chickens'.

Thus, in one generation or one million, in one individual or one species, the logic is still true... the 'egg' predates the existence of ANY 'chickens'.

Nothing is acomplished by just listening empathetically, she doesn't end up feeling any better about it...I go through these circles with my GF constantly, and all I do is listen and reassure her, I manage to avoid enflaming the situation by trying to fix the problems, but nothing is GAINED.

Just because the problem may not be completely solved it doesn't mean that nothing is gained. Even if she still is bothered by her problem, your reassurance probably does make her feel better and calm her anxieties. Plus, in most cases, it makes the woman love and appreciate you more for being understanding and patient. But what do I know; I'm just a woman.

A few months go by and the same emotional issues come back up. It may be hard to do, but if you don't want to fix a problem, and if all the sympathy in the world doesn't make you feel better than the burden is on you to become less sensitive.

It's not exactly sensitivity (though in that case about the woman WAS overly sensitive and looking to be offended). Women are under tremendous pressure to be "perfect" and have been since childhood. We are constantly judged and scrutinized by men and women both - it's not sensitivity or paranoia, but fact. If a woman has what she perceives as a big flaw that puts her in a catch-22 like that case (wants it to go away but can't go through surgery again) it can cause a lot of anxiety. Men can be just as sensitive, but women are allowed and encouraged to express it.

A woman should emotionally lean on a man; he shouldn't have to carry her around.

Ha! Women don't expect to emotionally lean on a man. It's a nice thing if a girl can confide in her guy and he can be supportive, but one of the biggest complaints from women is that guys aren't "emotionally available." Do you really think that your girlfriend expects you to carry her around, or could it maybe be that you think you have to be her hero?

And there it is.....

I have always wondered if there would be an actual debate on which came first, the chicken or the egg. It has arrived. Tsk.

When a woman makes a statement like that it's because she wants to be able to talk about the problem, without neccessarily finding a solution.

When a man hears her talk about a problem his immediate response is to try and find a solution to the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As a result, women view men as insensitive and men view women as mad and unpredictable. In conclusion: God has a really nasty sense of humour.

Totally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomlittleisland
When a woman makes a statement like that it's because she wants to be able to talk about the problem, without neccessarily finding a solution.

When a man hears her talk about a problem his immediate response is to try and find a solution to the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As a result, women view men as insensitive and men view women as mad and unpredictable. In conclusion: God has a really nasty sense of humour.

Actually, remember, it's the devil...God's just the bitch that threw us out because 'he' was in a bad mood.

Guess 'he' finally realized the true joy of *smite*ing people :D (this is why I love B&W...and 2)

Here's a question. Is reality real and true for all? Or is it a figment of our imaginations, something that each individual creates in their mind?

Again... irrelevent.

All of our modern 'chickens' come from Red Jungle Fowl, originally. Through the gradual process that 'evolved' them to our modern 'chickens', the reproduction was (one imagines) largely 'egg-based', and proceded in a very much 'parent-lays-egg-which-hatches-to-produce-young' manner.

Thus, overall... ALL of the eggs in the before the advent of 'chickens' were actually the eggs of Red Jungle Fowl, and all of the offspring in any given generation that could truly be called 'chickens' must have been hatched as 'chickens'.

Thus, in one generation or one million, in one individual or one species, the logic is still true... the 'egg' predates the existence of ANY 'chickens'.
Ah, but that avoids the question posed in the original post, every bit as much as the other poster was attempting to.

The question is not "which came first: chickens or eggs?"

(this has probably already been said, but...)

If a fat girl crys in a forest, does anybody care?

And smell, and taste, and so forth...

It's pink with green spots, smells like a strong cologne with a hint of tobacco, and it tastes stupendous.

Or does it?????????????

Well this is a continuation on the duck quacking in the forest and no one there to observe it.

Well basically since Color and taste and smell are subjective (depends on who is doing the smelling seeing and tasting). I'd say it doesn't have a color until someone sees it and it doesn't have a taste until someone (or something) eats it and so on.
Here's why and I know no one is taking this forum seriously but.........
If you are color blind can't see the color red (as I see it) and you saw a red duck well I'd say you would report that the duck was not red.
same applies to taste (you could say it tastes good and I could say it tastes bad the only one that determines the taste of the duck is the one who ate it.
just a thought :)
Steven
'

Ah, but that avoids the question posed in the original post, every bit as much as the other poster was attempting to.

The question is not "which came first: chickens or eggs?"

You're missing the point -- it's blatantly obvious. Chickens come from eggs. Animals do not spontaneously mutate into chickens -- they have their genetic information from birth. The first chicken came from the first chicken egg. Case closed.

Maybe the reason everything tastes like chicken is because EVERYTHING is chicken!
Or the Matrix doesn't know how to compute taste and so it was easier to make Chicken taste like everything
food for thought
Steven

Ah, but that avoids the question posed in the original post, every bit as much as the other poster was attempting to.

The question is not "which came first: chickens or eggs?"

But, neither is it "Which came first: THE chicken, or THE egg?"

You can get what you like from the question...

Does it mean: 'which is first, creator or created'? (Which has at elast 3 distinct possible answers)

Does it mean: 'here is a chicken, here is it's eggshell... which came first'? (Which is afairly obvious)

Does it mean: 'which came first: the concept of a chicken or the concept of an egg'?


If we are debating it AS philosophy, I'd say that the most pertinent question would be the whole question of existence... where chicken and egg are only metaphors. In which case, the only honest answer is - how the hell could we know?

But, neither is it "Which came first: THE chicken, or THE egg?"

You can get what you like from the question...

Does it mean: 'which is first, creator or created'? (Which has at elast 3 distinct possible answers)

Does it mean: 'here is a chicken, here is it's eggshell... which came first'? (Which is afairly obvious)

Does it mean: 'which came first: the concept of a chicken or the concept of an egg'?


If we are debating it AS philosophy, I'd say that the most pertinent question would be the whole question of existence... where chicken and egg are only metaphors. In which case, the only honest answer is - how the hell could we know?
Aye, as a philosophical dilemma only a few contexts are useful. The dilemma is a useful demonstration of paradox; to puzzle it out a useful demonstration of how answers are dependent upon specific meanings of words. The only usefulness of the dilemma, rather than disparing about not being able to know an answer, is in recognizing that the question is what is significant, not the answer that cannot be derived. In posing the question as a dilemma, we are given pause to imagine the progessive loop within the cause and effect universe.

Edit: Eternal causality. What a lovely concept. :)

Aye, as a philosophical dilemma only a few contexts are useful. The dilemma is a useful demonstration of paradox; to puzzle it out a useful demonstration of how answers are dependent upon specific meanings of words. The only usefulness of the dilemma, rather than disparing about not being able to know an answer, is in recognizing that the question is what is significant, not the answer that cannot be derived. In posing the question as a dilemma, we are given pause to imagine the progessive loop within the cause and effect universe.

Edit: Eternal causality. What a lovely concept. :)

Eternal Causality is about the mosty logical concept I can find, to be honest... kind of why I'm inclined to favour the option of a 'repeating universe', each incarnation rising from the ashes of the previous universe's last flickering.

Regarding the philosophy, though... we see the thing differently (yeah, like when does that ever happen...?). The usefullness of the dilemma, is to know that it cannot be rationally answered. The question is meaningless... a means to an end, nothing more. It is that acceptance of ignorance which is important.

Eggs. Animals have been laying eggs long before chickens evolved. Case closed.

yeah, thats what i was gonna say.

Here's a "why" question: why are stupid, meaningless questions called profound? The most stupid thing I have heard is people giving "why?" as some kind of deep statement. Ooh! You failed to specify what I am to give the reason for! You'd better hurry up and name some natural occurence that doesn't have a reason because reason implies thought and act as if assuming nature can think makes your question clever!

I just skimmed over nine pages of philosophy talk, so forgive me if this has already been said, but...

The real question is not "Who came first, the chicken or the egg?" Since something had to come before the chicken to create it.

The real question is in fact, "Who laid the first egg? And how was this egg-layer created?"

That'll make sparks fly from your brain just thinking about it.

(Oh, and I hate women.) Talking to women is like :headbang: sometimes.


(Just kidding. Forgive me! :D )

I pose a conundrum to you. A riddle, if you will.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

Regarding the philosophy, though... we see the thing differently (yeah, like when does that ever happen...?). The usefullness of the dilemma, is to know that it cannot be rationally answered. The question is meaningless... a means to an end, nothing more. It is that acceptance of ignorance which is important.
Ah, but what is this "ignorance" that is being accepted? If there is no rational answer to the question then it is not ignorance of a rational answer being accepted.

Here's a "why" question: why are stupid, meaningless questions called profound? The most stupid thing I have heard is people giving "why?" as some kind of deep statement. Ooh! You failed to specify what I am to give the reason for! You'd better hurry up and name some natural occurence that doesn't have a reason because reason implies thought and act as if assuming nature can think makes your question clever!

My favorite philosopher is Peter Griffin's ancestor, Plato Griffin.

"Plato, stop looking at the wall all day and get a JOB!!"

(Strokes chin and makes questioning hand gesture) "Why?"

The most stupid thing I have heard is people giving "why?" as some kind of deep statement. Ooh! You failed to specify what I am to give the reason for!
What I do then is supply any darned thing I like to be what I'm to give a reason for. :D

I pose a conundrum to you. A riddle, if you will.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
Eat desert first? Then the meat is moot.

Ah, but what is this "ignorance" that is being accepted? If there is no rational answer to the question then it is not ignorance of a rational answer being accepted.

Yes. Exactly.

Eat desert first? Then the meat is moot.

Then, how can you have any pudding, if you don't eat your moot?

Ah, but what is this "ignorance" that is being accepted? If there is no rational answer to the question then it is not ignorance of a rational answer being accepted.

Ah, but ignorance is crucial to the entire process!

If a man is ignorant, and does not know it, he is sleeping. Wake him.

If a man is ignorant and knows that he is so, he is seeking. Follow him, and you will find truth.

It is when I am ignorant and I believe myself to have knowledge that I cross the line from ignorance to foolishness.