Fowl of Fame?

[Nocapszy]

Many famous philosophical conundrums employ fowl in their symbology.

For example:
The chicken and the egg -- which came first?
If a rooster lays his egg on the exact center of the roof, does it balance?

By my reckoning, there's one that's been overlooked for an embarrassing while too long. It's typically used in the same context where you would point to someone's shirt then flick their nose.

Truly a forgotten perplexion, this question has brought kindergartners and teenagers to tears, surely as a result of their inevitable failure to fathom all its implications.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

I'd say it's high time we pay it its dues and induct it into this hall of fame... of sorts.

-----

Or is it perhaps too soon?

I can't help myself but notice that the other two examples involve an egg just as well as a chicken.

 

[Jack Flak]

The egg obviously came first, being the first bearer of the DNA.

 

[Nocapszy]

That was similar to my calculation.
But then the teacher complained that it wasn't fair of me to use a non-chicken egg. So I said, well the chicken evolved. It came from an egg lain by an animal what was almost chicken -- chicken enough to lay one, the first chicken egg, thence birthing the first chicken, but not chicken enough to be called a chicken.
But then one wonders if it would be called a chicken egg just because what emerged was chicken. Maybe we call it chicken anscestor egg.
Then one wonders why he wasted so much time trying to find the right name for something when it doesn't really matter because the constituents of the egg and it's contents are entirely unaffected by our name for them.

Dontcha wish more people understood this The Flak? I can think of a few specific examples...

 

[Nocapszy]

I can't help noticing my thread is being neglected.

Do you guys not take me seriously?

 

[Jack Flak]

Dontcha wish more people understood this The Flak? I can think of a few specific examples...

Yes my life has been made of these examples.

Other post.

Change the title.

 

[Nocapszy]

It's too late
Gawsh I wish more people would try and decipher cryptic metaphors.

Why did the chicken cross the road?
Seriously. Why?

Do you know?



If no one understands, I'm afraid I'll lose all faith in the fidelity of lyrics.
And I have a lot.

 

[Jack Flak]

Do you know?

Shall I tell you? It's the least I can do.

He had absolutely nothing better to do.

 

[Nocapszy]

Correct.
The chicken did it to get to the other side. Nothing better to do.

Everything is trying to get where it's going.
Let's all muse at the profundity.

 

[Jack Flak]

Profundity will get you one thing: Thirty seconds closer to death.

 

[Nocapszy]

Like I said, everything is trying to get where it's going.

 

[miss fortune]

Are chickens even bright enough to realize that it was a road and not just more ground to walk on?

 

[Nocapszy]

I'm not certain that's really a prevalent issue -- does the chicken's assessment of the terra change that it's trying to get where it's going?

 

[miss fortune]

well... why bring the road into the question if it doesn't matter? why not ask "why did the chicken walk 5 yards to the left?" if the road and the chickens awareness of its existance doesn't matter?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

well... why bring the road into the question if it doesn't matter? why not ask "why did the chicken walk 5 yards to the left?" if the road and the chickens awareness of its existance doesn't matter?

Well, why did you pick left and 5 yards in that case? It's not relevant to the main point.

But why do we assume that the chicken is trying to get where it's going? Sure it's going somewhere, but maybe it isn't trying. For all I know, some stonger power is compelling the chicken's body to walk across the road, without the chicken consciously trying to go anywhere.

 

[miss fortune]

Well, why did you pick left and 5 yards in that case?

why not? it's as relevant as crossing the road if the chicken is unaware!

 

[Magic Poriferan]

why not? it's as relevant as crossing the road if the chicken is unaware!

That's actually my point. Neither are relevent, but you'll find it harder to give the example without using some kind of tangible reference that involves details that are not pertinent to the main point. It's also just less aesthetically pleasing when you do that, so most people ignore it.

 

[Nocapszy]

well... why bring the road into the question if it doesn't matter? why not ask "why did the chicken walk 5 yards to the left?" if the road and the chickens awareness of its existance doesn't matter?

It's relevant only in proof that things will go where they're trying to go even at the risk of life and limb (assuming the street is frequently used) but... it's not really relevant.
Just a landmark.
The Poriferan is correct. It's just pleasing.

The Poriferan has not yet seen the raw implications.
Higher force? So what?
Ultimately it has to be the chicken's decision to comply with the force, conscious or not.

 

[miss fortune]

So, if we assume that the chicken is just as dumb as they frequently appear to be, it's blithe disregard and unawareness to danger will lead it into potentially dangerous places in search of what it needs to live, or to avoid real or perceived dangers.....


kinna like why they have those damned Slow Children at Play signs

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The Poriferan has not yet seen the raw implications.
Higher force? So what?
Ultimately it has to be the chicken's decision to comply with the force, conscious or not.

Does it? What if I a tornado picked the chicken up? The chicken can't resist the tornado, so where it is taken has nothing to do with where the chicken is trying to get to, even if the chicken does not comply with the tornado (the tornado does not need the chicken's compliance ). So, the chicken is going somewhere that it is not trying to go.

Also, I think consciousness does matter, becuase the nature of the word "try" is one that has intent. I suppose you could refer to sub-conscious intent, but in the case of the tornado, the chicken could definitely be going somewhere that no level of the chicken's conscience intends to go. It is going without intent, and lack of intent means it's not trying.

 

[Nocapszy]

The chicken is complying with the tornado. It complies by having mass.
It doesn't have to be a deliberate for it to be a decision.
That is to say, if we allow sentience or consciousness to accompany a system or any component of a system, we can't necessarily be convinced either will make deliberation.


Since the system is up against the whim of its constituents, and those things are most likely incapable of cognition, the closest thing to a decision they can make is choosing to follow the rules of physics. If in the course of this, those individuals decide to stop cooperating, the system fails. The systematic entity wasn't really an entity to begin with. It just looked like it. Oops.

Like I said, metaphor.

That is to say, if we allow sentience or consciousness to accompany a system or any component of a system, we can't necessarily be convinced either will make deliberation.

Maybe it's not the same type of consciousness you and I are familiar with.
(preemptive response to your next point)