The chicken or the egg? The blonde or the brunette?
I was thinking about that "chicken or the egg" issue...
I still say that the "model of chicken" has always existed, even before the existence of an instance of a chicken in the universe. But why? Well, to my best understanding, it boils down to the genetic key that defines a chicken.
Two ancient animals getting together had potential to produce chickens, or dodos. It was just some convergence of (seemingly) random luck that chickens were produced. Let us suppose they had equal chance of producing dodos. It is clear then, that both the models for both the chicken and the dodo existed before actual instances of them existed.
The parents of the chicken could have been birds, or worms, or whatever they were. The egg that they produced... (if they produced an egg at all) was a chicken egg. It could also be possible that the chicken was born without having to incubate inside of an egg; and then as more chickens were made, they started to produce eggs!
So... we can see that either the chicken or the egg could have been the first thing to be instanciated -- but it must be accepted that the chicken model, and then chicken egg model existed before either those.
---
I don't understand how eggs are formed... but I suspect that chicken and chicken egg are equally of the same creature. Essentially, when the DNA codes of both parents come together, they mix together to create "chicken" or "dodo"... and depending on what was to be born... that initial cell would start to sub-divide, absorb whatever nutrients it needed... and maybe it produced its own egg shell for protection. Or maybe the egg shell is something that only chickens (as parents) can produce to protect their offspring. But since eggs are not resticted to chickens, and are a feature of birds... it is more likely that chicken are a subset of birds (which we seem to accept) and that they were born from an ancient bird species (ie: pre-chicken)... as opposed to being born directly from worms or whatever.
What that last paragraph discussed... was the issue of whether or not a chicken requires an egg to be considered a chicken. I think that "chicken" requires "bird" to exist before... and that "bird" requires... something else...?
So, assuming that "bird" already existed before "chicken", we can say that "chicken" came first. Otherwise, "egg" came first, containing the first "bird"... which could have been a chicken?
We would have to ask for the family tree of chickens and birds to be able to carry on any further discourse. Eventually, we will have to go back to examining how "life" started on earth... and ultimately how the universe started!
---
About the universe... is it right to say that we live in a world of duality? Of simply positive and negative forces? "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"...
...and that life, as we know it, is simply a phenomenon that involves the convergence of a lot of factors involving positive and negative forces?
---
Oh, about blondes and brunettes... I just wanted to point out that the brunette status exists independent of the blode status. Why? ...because of genes. You could have been born blonde, but your genes say that you're really a brunette. Eventually, those dominant genes take over and you become a brunette. If you would have died before your brown hair started growing, your genes would still say you're a brunette. Only... nobody would know unless they checked.
---
"If a tree fell in a forest... and there was nobody around... would it still make noise?"
---
Well, if you were deaf of hearing and watching that tree fall, and you had a microphone to record sound... you could say the tree made noise.
Your existence, however, doesn't affect the fact that the tree makes noise.
If you didn't exist... the microphone still records the event of the tree falling.
The microphone's existence doesn't even matter.
The tree's existence, however... does matter. The moment it falls, it is no longer a tree. It becomes a log, providing a record of the existence of a tree that fell.
No tree = no log = no tree to fall over.
---
I wonder if that has anything to do with the concept of "data logging"...
---
Interesting stuff, no?
I still say that the "model of chicken" has always existed, even before the existence of an instance of a chicken in the universe. But why? Well, to my best understanding, it boils down to the genetic key that defines a chicken.
Two ancient animals getting together had potential to produce chickens, or dodos. It was just some convergence of (seemingly) random luck that chickens were produced. Let us suppose they had equal chance of producing dodos. It is clear then, that both the models for both the chicken and the dodo existed before actual instances of them existed.
The parents of the chicken could have been birds, or worms, or whatever they were. The egg that they produced... (if they produced an egg at all) was a chicken egg. It could also be possible that the chicken was born without having to incubate inside of an egg; and then as more chickens were made, they started to produce eggs!
So... we can see that either the chicken or the egg could have been the first thing to be instanciated -- but it must be accepted that the chicken model, and then chicken egg model existed before either those.
---
I don't understand how eggs are formed... but I suspect that chicken and chicken egg are equally of the same creature. Essentially, when the DNA codes of both parents come together, they mix together to create "chicken" or "dodo"... and depending on what was to be born... that initial cell would start to sub-divide, absorb whatever nutrients it needed... and maybe it produced its own egg shell for protection. Or maybe the egg shell is something that only chickens (as parents) can produce to protect their offspring. But since eggs are not resticted to chickens, and are a feature of birds... it is more likely that chicken are a subset of birds (which we seem to accept) and that they were born from an ancient bird species (ie: pre-chicken)... as opposed to being born directly from worms or whatever.
What that last paragraph discussed... was the issue of whether or not a chicken requires an egg to be considered a chicken. I think that "chicken" requires "bird" to exist before... and that "bird" requires... something else...?
So, assuming that "bird" already existed before "chicken", we can say that "chicken" came first. Otherwise, "egg" came first, containing the first "bird"... which could have been a chicken?
We would have to ask for the family tree of chickens and birds to be able to carry on any further discourse. Eventually, we will have to go back to examining how "life" started on earth... and ultimately how the universe started!
---
About the universe... is it right to say that we live in a world of duality? Of simply positive and negative forces? "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"...
...and that life, as we know it, is simply a phenomenon that involves the convergence of a lot of factors involving positive and negative forces?
---
Oh, about blondes and brunettes... I just wanted to point out that the brunette status exists independent of the blode status. Why? ...because of genes. You could have been born blonde, but your genes say that you're really a brunette. Eventually, those dominant genes take over and you become a brunette. If you would have died before your brown hair started growing, your genes would still say you're a brunette. Only... nobody would know unless they checked.
---
"If a tree fell in a forest... and there was nobody around... would it still make noise?"
---
Well, if you were deaf of hearing and watching that tree fall, and you had a microphone to record sound... you could say the tree made noise.
Your existence, however, doesn't affect the fact that the tree makes noise.
If you didn't exist... the microphone still records the event of the tree falling.
The microphone's existence doesn't even matter.
The tree's existence, however... does matter. The moment it falls, it is no longer a tree. It becomes a log, providing a record of the existence of a tree that fell.
No tree = no log = no tree to fall over.
---
I wonder if that has anything to do with the concept of "data logging"...
---
Interesting stuff, no?
posted by starlocke at 12:45 AM
1 Comments:
<< About the universe... is it right to say that we live in a world of duality? Of simply positive and negative forces? "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"... >>
<< ...and that life, as we know it, is simply a phenomenon that involves the convergence of a lot of factors involving positive and negative forces? >>
I'm not sure if s_cat's comment was a direct response to me... the emphasis on SAY seems to imply that I was making some kind of statement about "the world"... whatever that means. I was strictly thinking about the physical universe, initially. I simply asked a fundamental question.
---
To s_cat...
I cannot fathom how you can high-and-mightily say that you don't live in a world of duality. You must be crazy. At least, I should probably think of you that way...
You're dead, or you're alive.
From the point of view of the life we have here with you... you fall into a lot of dualities. Are you saying you're not here? Are you saying one of us doesn't exist?
Back up your claims, or don't try to make claims that are so outrageous.
---
My focus was on how "models" and "instances" are two sets, that are related, but disjoint.
If you're saying that statement is false, then please, by all means... break as much of what I've said, to the best of your abilities, instead of arbitrarily making claims that don't hold up at all.
---
Yes, I realize I'm quick to notice points for argument. Why do I pick on them? Maybe so we can all come to a resolution... that'd be nice.
Nobody agrees, which is sad. What the hell do I know, right?
I'm just a crazy kid who thinks about things.
Maybe I'll just shut up next time and agree to things I find to be wrong. The universe isn't going to suddenly fall apart for my sake -- but my sense of self-esteem will sure be shot to hell.
---
You agreed that the existence of my hypothetical tree matters - to be able to answer the "sound" question.
Then you claim that it does not exist, simply because you cannot stand beside it! That's absurd.
I effectively stated earlier that YOU DON'T MATTER. You seem to be missing that point. THE TREE DOES NOT DEPEND ON YOU TO EXIST! YOU ARE NOT IN QUESTION. THE TREE IS IN QUESTION.
1) You cannot say "the tree exists". Nor can you say "the tree does not exist". -- because it was a hypothetical issue!
2) You can only say "if... then... yes/no" -- unless you're supernatural and can bend the universe to your will in order to control the existence of trees.
Post a Comment
<< Home