= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Warrigal comments on The Featherless Biped - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (63)
So if I removed the lungs of chicken, you would no longer consider it a bird? Or if I surgically modified some other creature (e.g. a pig) to have circulatory lungs, you would consider this to be a bird?
This kind of argument is why it is pretty difficult to come up with a comprehensive set of features for a broad category like 'bird'. Often the best you can do is produce a set of examples demonstrating the category. Humans are pretty good at such pattern recognition from a set of data.
Like a lot of things, it is hard to define, but you know it when you see it :-)
Well, if you remove the lungs of a chicken, its species is still a species whose members typically have circulatory lungs. What I was wondering is whether there are any species of bird that are not warm-blooded with circulatory lungs, or if there are any species of anything else that are.