Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
patokl
Over 90 days ago
Straight Cis Male
0 miles · Germany

Forum

Quote by BiMale73


Weird that you would recognize the bird as a chicken, but not its egg as a chicken's egg
No, like I mentioned earlier, it's whether you define a chicken's egg as an egg laid by a chicken or an egg from which a chicken hatches.
Sure, there were plenty of eggs before chickens: dinosaur/reptilian/amphibian/fish eggs etc. But I don't think those are the eggs that are referred to in the question.


It's not a chicken's egg, because it was not laid by a chicken, but it is a chicken egg, because it contains a chicken(embryo).
Quote by BiMale73
do you define sound as the perception (what happens in ones ear) or the potential (the audible waves)?

Both are valid and neither excludes the other.
I have never touched a woman in a way she didn't want me to
Adi? Yes of course, who knows what she's hiding... I think I'll be searching and probing for quite a while
Simmie above me, I'd kiss you anytime, anywhere (and you can explain that word any way you like ;) )
Quote by Milik_the_Red


Um, wouldn't the proto-chicken's egg be a proto-chicken egg, regardless if it happen to contain the first, mutant chicken? Then that mutant chicken would have laid the first chicken egg? I wonder, does one describe the egg by who laid it. Or by what came out?

I guess you could argue about that, but let's pretend we found that egg, without knowing who laid it.
If we'd want to know what kind of egg it was, we'd have one option: let it hatch and see what comes out. What would we conclude?
And whether it was a proto-chicken egg or a chicken-egg, the chicken would not have existed without that egg, but the egg did exist without a chicken. Ergo, the egg was first.
Natasha! You sexy woman! This is NOT your place. I'm sexy, it is MINE!
I agree CD. Got caught up in a little discussion in the lounge but I'm back now. What have I missed?
Quote by Simmerdownchick
what came first? The chicken or the egg?

That one is simple. The chicken has a long line of evolutionary ancestors. The last one in that line laid an egg with a genetic change that produced the chicken. Altbough the egg was not laid by s chicken but by an ancestor, it was the first chicken egg, out of which the first chicken hatched. So, the egg was first.
Quote by TheAngryishLover


The ear senses the different pressures and waves hitting it, and depending on the pressure and/or wave it tells the brain how 'loud' or 'close' something it. It is the ear converting that wave into sound, that makes a sound.

I'm only repeating what I've already said, and so this is my last post on the matter as either you can't grasp or disagree with what I'm saying, but....

The effects of a tree falling down will result in the potential for someone to hear it should they be there or not. But sound is a perception. Sound is your brain trying to make sense of the world. Sound itself isn't a something that happens naturally. Sound only becomes apparent in the minds of someone who can experience it.

As I said, other creatures would take that same vibration, from the tree falling, and be able to see it. Not hear it, but see it, because their brain manipulates the shock waves differently.

Everything that happens, to the air and ground, would happen exactly the same if a person was there or not. But it takes a person, or creature, with the ability to convert those movements into sound, that creates sound.

Sound isn't a pysical thing that happens, sound is a result of our ears manipulating those physical changes around us into sound. Therefore, no us and no sound

Simply ignoring a definition does not make it go away. We humans defined sound as a physical phenomenon. We decided to call a specific kind of vibration, or waves if you like, within a certain frequencyrange, sound. Of course we did that, because we could sense their existence; we heard them. But we heard them, because they existed. They existed, and we decided to call them sound. And the fact that they exist too in places, where no living being will ever experience them, does not make them non-existent there, nor does it make the name we gave them invalid.
Nope, you just confirmed, what I wrote:

Quote by TheAngryishLover
In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a medium such as air or water.

This perfectly describes the natural phenomenon. And agian, it does not include the requirement, that it is actually heard. Audible means it CAN be heard, not that it MUST be heard. If that specific type of vibration exists, by this definition too, sound exists.

Quote by TheAngryishLover
In physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.[1]

And this is about the sensation of sound, the way we experience it. And yes, the sensation does not exist if no sound (the phenomenon) reaches an eardrum.
Philosophy is nice, but we are speaking of two things here. Sound as a sensation does not exist if it's not registred by a living being. Sound as a natural phenomenon does, even if no living soul notices it.

Quote by TheAngryishLover
Vibrations doesn't equal sound

That is like saying animal does not equal cow, which is true of course, but that is twisting things around. Cows ARE animals after all. And by the very definition of it sound (as a natural phenomenon) IS a specific kind of vibration. Again , our definition of sound does not require, that the vibration is registred. Therefore, if that specific type of vibration exists, sound exists.

If you feel, that is not true, I'd suggest you start trying to convince quite a few scientists, as well as the publishers of the major dictionaries and encyclopedia to change it in their publications.
Quote by trinket
Give it up patokl. surely you realise you can't compete with my sexiness.

I'll never give up. You are sexy, not a shadow of a doubt about that, but I'm able to take this spot back, I'm sexier
Sorry, but that fun is over now, I'm sexiest and I'm back.
Quote by Ardentmale
But what if your NOT right??

I know, it's tricky. I think, I'd better wait until Adi tells me want she wants me to show, don't you think?
Quote by amy1967


It has its ugly side. But then there's people like you that remind me of why I still like it here. You are the epitome of what's beautiful here.
I could not agree more.
With the right company, absolutely

TPBM has never seen a natural icefloor
She is an excellent writer of arousing stories and poems, and on top of that, she is a very nice lady
Quote by adi_me33
You blushed. So you did hear me, didn't ya?

Yeah, I blushed. Not because I heard you though, but because it suddenly dawned on me, what you might want me to show you.
Could I be right?
Think I've been doing that, sorta, just a few minutes ago

Have you ever watched a people in a tv program thinking, you wanted that too? (For me, that was the case every time Jacques Cousteau was on)
Quote by TheAngryishLover


Patokl, read it back....

Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ea

That's exactly what I said. the way that sound is defined, here, is that it has to be HEARD. Not 'heard or not', but it has to be heard

Please read back about what I said on radiowaves as a perfect example of what I was discussing

I disagree. It does not say it HAS to be heard, it says it CAN be heard, in other words, it states a possibility, not a condition.