'Stop at red' campaign

then its all about the last rites

It might not be that fast as I'd probably have to convert to catholicism first , shiva wouldn't care

*Hinduism does not view sin as a crime against God, but as an act against dharma - moral order - and one's own self. It is thought natural, if unfortunate, that young souls act wrongly, for they are living in nescience, avidya, the darkness of ignorance. *

Young at heart, eh

that question may be trivial to such a mega-brain as yourself tynan, but questions like that (and also "can you step into the same river twice?") are a really good way to make kids think. I find it fascinating!

chris crash all right smarty which came first the chicken or the egg?

The egg.

Again you must initially define what you mean by chicken or egg (specifically an egg that will become a chicken but not necessarily having come from a chicken.)

Once you have defined what you consider the point in the long line of ancestry from non-chickens to chickens you would like to label a 'chicken' - simply go back one generation to the non-chicken immediately before the (defined) chicken and watch as it lays the first egg that will become (as you define) a chicken.

The egg. (well technically the answer is the zygote, but you get the idea)

Again it's all definitions.

the-smiling-buddha it was very serious thought provoking question, if you go through a red light and no -one sees, its like you never went through that red light at all

That is why I am a consequentialist.

Au contraire, organisms are defined by species, and a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, therefore to have an egg you have to have chickens

asm that question may be trivial to such a mega-brain as yourself tynan, but questions like that (and also "can you step into the same river twice?") are a really good way to make kids think. I find it fascinating!

Don't misunderstand me ! I agree, it's all good, and I completely understand why the answers are not important, it is simply that in this case the answer is trivial.

And it is not simply that it is trivial, it is that it is trivial and at the same time often asked like it is a deeply profound enigma, my comments are really about that.

You are right in that it probably holds some fun for kids.

Last time anyone called me 'mega' anything - it didn't have brain on the end. :)

I think I must be a consequentialist too then, I probably won't mention it to the next copper who tugs me though, he might think I was being 'smart' or summit

the-smiling-buddha Au contraire, organisms are defined by species, and a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, therefore to have an egg you have to have chickens

[in a french accent]

no no no !

'Species' is the mistake. In evolutionarily terms 'species' is a rather nebulous term as there is no clear point at which one ancestor evolves into it's next stage (perhaps my use of 'stage' here falls in to the same category error ?).

On the evolutionary path from non-chicken to chicken, there was was no point at which things changed radically, there were vanishingly small incremental changes.

That is why the answer would be to let the questioner define what he or she means by 'chicken'. Once he or she has picked at what stage of the evolutionary line he feels the creature can be called a chicken - it is reasonable to say that they did not change from a non-chicken to a chicken after the zygote.

Is this reasonable ?

My real feelings are that the question is flawed as the question lacks the correct input. Kind of like asking what it 5 + B ? - My answer would always have to be 'what number are you ascribing to B.'

the-smiling-buddha I think I must be a consequentialist too then, I probably won't mention it to the next copper who tugs me though, he might think I was being 'smart' or summit

:)

Species is the 'accepted' way of catogorizing organisms by this reckoning you need two chickens to produce an egg if however you change the way you categorize your organism then you can obtain any result you hope for although it ought to be noted that sexual reproduction between species is a rather hit or miss affair so its best not to actually count your chickens before they have hatched

I'll get my coat...night

the chicken and egg thing was a joke,

what i find interesting is the question is really a test of the anthrope-centralism of the person being asked.

some one who is anthrope-centric would say there is no sound because there is no human to hear it, some one who is not anthrope-centric would say there is a sound because there is a sound wave. so although it is a question of definition, it is in fact the definition that answers the question.

chris crash all right smarty which came first the chicken or the egg?

I think that my avatar answers that question

chris crash the chicken and egg thing was a joke,

Same question as the forest/sound one really, equivocation/definitions.

chris crash what i find interesting is the question is really a test of the anthrope-centralism of the person being asked.

some one who is anthrope-centric would say there is no sound because there is no human to hear it, some one who is not anthrope-centric would say there is a sound because there is a sound wave. so although it is a question of definition, it is in fact the definition that answers the question.

Like I said 'To answer the question simply define 'sound'.'

the-smiling-buddha Species is the 'accepted' way of catogorizing organisms

This is great news ! :) - (let's for the moment ignore the 'species problem')

I think you misunderstand my point, perhpas I have not put it very well.

Imagine a long line from left to right on a piece of paper, at the far left (the past) we draw a small sea slug (or whatever the chickens ancestor may happen to be) - on the far right (the present) we draw a modern chicken and ancestor of the featherless, wingless, beakless, non-oxygen breathing sea slug.

In between we draw (at convenient arbitrary intervals) the stages at which the slug evolves towards chicken.

For the chicken/egg question to be approached, you much first tell me at what place on our piece of paper you would see the creature as a 'chicken', the sea slug ? - too far back perhaps, the modern 'chicken' ?, some stage shortly after the sea slug had left the sea and exchanged it's gills for lungs ? the chicken that first appeared in the 1800s ?, the 1970's ? 16,000 B.C ?

Tell me what you are calling a chicken and I will show you the egg it came from, (unless you think that a creature can change species after the zygote is made?) - if you insist that the 'chicken' egg must come from a 'chicken' then you must revise your place (backwards) on the time line where you believe what we call a 'chicken' first appeared.

The fact that you very quickly run into the problem of infinite regress should be a clue here !

the-smiling-buddha by this reckoning you need two chickens to produce an egg

Define 'chicken' and you will see why this is wrong.

which came frist the chicken dance or the egg?

chris crash which came frist the chicken dance or the egg?

Define the chicken dance.

define "define"

//this is like a version of 'challenge anneka' - i do hope that tynan is jumping out of his philosophical helicopter wearing his bright yellow jumpsuit of enquiry//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UV3kRV46Zs

defined

chris crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UV3kRV46Zs

defined

The egg.

are you shure, that has an acordian, and acordians are older then time

big daddy wayne define "define"

Look it up, it's any easy one.

big daddy wayne //this is like a version of 'challenge anneka' - i do hope that tynan is jumping out of his philosophical helicopter wearing his bright yellow jumpsuit of enquiry//

I was looking for a picture of Anneka (I put 'challenge anneka' into goole) but instead I got this:

Are you thinking what I'm thinking ?

chris crash are you shure, that has an acordian, and acordians are older then time

Ok, now I am not so sure, accordion you say ?

Look it up, it's any easy one.

Dismissiveness Delivers Dissapointment - Define Definition Debatable

im thinking old lady loses an arm...