The chicken comes before the egg.

Alias · Post by **Alias** » February 15th, 2019, 4:04 pm

Who knows?

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » February 16th, 2019, 2:36 am

The egg came first. We know this. Of course if you’re a creationist may choose to ignore evolutionary biology.

Arjen · Post by **Arjen** » February 16th, 2019, 7:44 am

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 16th, 2019, 2:36 am The egg came first. We know this. Of course if you’re a creationist may choose to ignore evolutionary biology.

Yeah, it is a nice game to play. Because what lay the egg?

I think a clue to the answer is in Lacan's idea of a 'system'. A 'system' is a closed whole of a thought. This means that for example (like Kant said) calculus can't have evolved numbers first and then we decided to add them together. It must have been a sudden complete thought: if I attribute value, then I can use operators on the values.

Immanuel Kant wrote: Phase one, man objectifies in two cardinal numbers two collections he has counted; phase two, with these numbers he realizes the act of adding them up.

h_k_s · Post by **h_k_s** » February 16th, 2019, 8:56 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 1:12 pm Whether the chicken comes before or after the egg is a philosophical question which apparently has never been asked before here on this forum, according to my research. So, let's ask it now.

But if it hasn't been asked by now, we may first want to wonder why. I suspect that the reason is that it has no apparent implications and is therefore a non-issue. But I think it does matter when you think about the issue of abortion: If you kill the egg, you also kill the chicken that comes after the egg. But if you kill the chicken, are the eggs that the chicken would have had also murdered?

If the chicken comes before the egg, then you can kill the chicken without killing the eggs. If the egg comes first, then you can't kill the chicken by killing the egg.

Anti-abortionists feel that we come from eggs and therefore the egg comes first but I am starting to think that the fact that we are made by eggs does not imply that we come from an egg. Who we are may be made by our dreams and thinking and this is where we are really from. And so, I believe the chicken comes first and that it comes down from the land of chalk drawing.

Holding this belief will make you feel that the right of the chicken to have an abortion is more important than the right of the egg to become a chicken because the chicken comes first.

Once more, what do you think? The chicken or the egg comes first, and does this issue has any implication in the abortion debate?

Chicken or egg dilemmas are just a variation of the First Cause issue.

First Cause is of course much more sophisticated.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » February 16th, 2019, 9:05 am

Arjen wrote: ↑February 16th, 2019, 7:44 am
Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 16th, 2019, 2:36 am The egg came first. We know this. Of course if you’re a creationist may choose to ignore evolutionary biology.
Yeah, it is a nice game to play. Because what lay the egg?

I think a clue to the answer is in Lacan's idea of a 'system'. A 'system' is a closed whole of a thought. This means that for example (like Kant said) calculus can't have evolved numbers first and then we decided to add them together. It must have been a sudden complete thought: if I attribute value, then I can use operators on the values.
Immanuel Kant wrote: Phase one, man objectifies in two cardinal numbers two collections he has counted; phase two, with these numbers he realizes the act of adding them up.

Huh? Not chicken ... hence the first chicken is a product of it’s parents (which weren’t chickens or it wouldn’t have been the first chicken). It’s not a complex question if you understand evolutionary biology. The question may as well be “What came first, you or your mother?”

h_k_s · Post by **h_k_s** » February 16th, 2019, 9:19 am

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 16th, 2019, 9:05 am
Arjen wrote: ↑February 16th, 2019, 7:44 am
Yeah, it is a nice game to play. Because what lay the egg?

I think a clue to the answer is in Lacan's idea of a 'system'. A 'system' is a closed whole of a thought. This means that for example (like Kant said) calculus can't have evolved numbers first and then we decided to add them together. It must have been a sudden complete thought: if I attribute value, then I can use operators on the values.

Huh? Not chicken ... hence the first chicken is a product of it’s parents (which weren’t chickens or it wouldn’t have been the first chicken). It’s not a complex question if you understand evolutionary biology. The question may as well be “What came first, you or your mother?”

"The first chicken" is, if you go back far enough into its pedigree, the common ancestor of all living things: a single cellular organism. Whether this microbe was mobile or nonmobile we cannot agree in science. How they originated we still do not know nor have any idea.

You cannot logically or intelligently pick a chicken and start your monologue there. It is not scientific nor logical.

It is illogical.

Alias · Post by **Alias** » February 16th, 2019, 10:36 am

I didn't even know forum pages came with instant replay.

Arjen · Post by **Arjen** » February 16th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 16th, 2019, 9:05 am
Arjen wrote: ↑February 16th, 2019, 7:44 am
Yeah, it is a nice game to play. Because what lay the egg?

I think a clue to the answer is in Lacan's idea of a 'system'. A 'system' is a closed whole of a thought. This means that for example (like Kant said) calculus can't have evolved numbers first and then we decided to add them together. It must have been a sudden complete thought: if I attribute value, then I can use operators on the values.

Huh? Not chicken ... hence the first chicken is a product of it’s parents (which weren’t chickens or it wouldn’t have been the first chicken). It’s not a complex question if you understand evolutionary biology. The question may as well be “What came first, you or your mother?”

I understand your point of view, but the chicken and the egg question is a species question if your answer is the egg. Then some proto chicken lay the first chicken egg. It being another species, the proto chicken does not qualify as a chicken, therefore the egg came first. However, in the first egg, there is the first chicken. The whole new species emerges as a whole. Not as one or the other, if you ask me.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » February 17th, 2019, 1:01 am

Arjen -

Try convincing evolutinoary biologists then. It’s all about the zygote.

Arjen · Post by **Arjen** » February 17th, 2019, 4:27 am

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 1:01 am Arjen -

Try convincing evolutinoary biologists then. It’s all about the zygote.

As said:
I understand the point of view.
However, the new species emerges as a complete new species.
This is where I question evolutionary biology.
Animals sometimes grow complete new limbs or organs in 2 or 3 generations.
How is that possible, when evolutionary biology suggests this is a process of many generations, possibly thousands?

Evolution is definitely involved, but somehow, the 'designs' of the new species are appearing ready made.
Which is why it reminds me of Lacan's systems. It emerges as a whole.

You can't invent mathematics without coming up with both numbers AND operators (+,-,x,:, etc).
It appears as a complete system, or not at all.

So, how does this happen in nature?
I am not sure.
I have considered that if there is a situation that requires different capabilities for a species, the species investigates and 'learns' what needs to be done. Then, their will goes to achieving this. Then, finally, the species comes up with a way to do it. If it can't physically do it, it somehow evolves into something that can. I came up with this while reading Lacan, right after reading Schopenhauer. In my opinion it is an argument in favor of Schopenhauer's world as 'will'. I can imagine that you might disagree with me.. It is hard to find proof of this, but I have found it from time to time. And I have never been able to falsify it. So, this is my idea. I haven't been able to change my perspective. This seems the best match I have ever heard of or thought of.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » February 17th, 2019, 4:36 am

Arjen -

How is that possible, when evolutionary biology suggests this is a process of many generations, possibly thousands?

Because many small intermedetary steps culminate in one dramatic shift. Think of it as being catalytic.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » February 17th, 2019, 5:12 am

Maybe I didn’t phrase that well ... let me put it like this > SOME changes are very, very small, and most changes in the genome do nothing, but the genome still changes. Then SOME changes trigger the previously latent items that previously did “nothing” are switched on - multiple genes even. This means that there is a complex combination of changes that whilst minute individually they can, and are, often turned on for the first time in combinations that dramatically shift the morphology of the creature.

This did puzzle people for sometime, but once we came to understand better how DNA functions then we finally understood how this seemingly instanteous shift happens - that happens as a result of culminative minute changes that just so happen to be “turned on” at the same time giving the appearance of one huge leap. The “junk DNA” isn’t literally “junk”.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » February 17th, 2019, 5:47 am

It never ceases to amaze me what people will believe.

Arjen · Post by **Arjen** » February 17th, 2019, 6:07 am

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 4:36 am Arjen -

How is that possible, when evolutionary biology suggests this is a process of many generations, possibly thousands?
Because many small intermedetary steps culminate in one dramatic shift. Think of it as being catalytic.

But that is proven by observation to be untrue. It is literally 2 or 3 generations that the whole species changed. The change occurs in 1 generation, but the whole group/species is transformed in 2 or 3. It is not little steps.

Arjen · Post by **Arjen** » February 17th, 2019, 6:09 am

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 5:12 am The “junk DNA” isn’t literally “junk”.

This part is true.

This did puzzle people for sometime, but once we came to understand better how DNA functions then we finally understood how this seemingly instanteous shift happens - that happens as a result of culminative minute changes that just so happen to be “turned on” at the same time giving the appearance of one huge leap.

This is proven to be untrue by observation.