4 ms·

> First, what is a tree? It’s a big long-lived self-supporting plant with leaves and wood. Hmm. This is a circular definition. You need to invoke tree to defin

> First, what is a tree? It’s a big long-lived self-supporting plant with leaves and wood. Hmm. This is a circular definition. You need to invoke tree to define leaves and wood.

williamdclt 1y ago
> You need to invoke tree to define leaves and wood. I don't think so? All non-tree plants have leaves (almost all maybe? edit: not cacti, so not all but most). Wood can be defined biologically ("cellulose fibers embedded in a lignin matrix" or something like that)
- hshshshshsh 1y ago
  Non tree plants still require you assume what a tree is.
  - mrkickling 1y ago
    Ok, but all plants have leaves so you would only have to agree on what a plant is. You are trying to make a point but it makes no sense. EDIT: you could also have totally separate definitions on what wood and leaves are without talking about trees or plants, don't you think?
    - hshshshshsh 1y ago
      Sure. But when most people think of plants they already use a tree like thing as mental model. People who have only seen non tree plants doesn't exist. And nor does any non tree plant leaves help you generate a tree leaf.
lproven 1y ago
No you don't. Lots of plants have leaves. A few don't, some primitive because they hadn't evolved them yet (e.g. algae) and a few because they lost them (broom, cacti). If there were no trees and nobody had ever seen a tree you could still explain leaves. Lots of plants have wood. Things that aren't trees have wood. They're called bushes. Wood is a thing separate from trees. Not all trees have wood: bananas grow on really big herbs that people call trees because they are tree-sized, but they're herbs. Palm trees aren't really made of wood.
- hshshshshsh 1y ago
  Yeah. But that wood and that leaves of plant don't get you a tree. You are filling in the blanks that makes something a tree with information you already know about trees.
  - lproven 1y ago
    I do not understand what you are getting at. :-(

> First, what is a tree? It’s a big long-lived self-supporting plant with leaves and wood. Hmm. This is a circular definition. You need to invoke tree to define leaves and wood.

williamdclt 1y ago

> You need to invoke tree to define leaves and wood. I don't think so? All non-tree plants have leaves (almost all maybe? edit: not cacti, so not all but most). Wood can be defined biologically ("cellulose fibers embedded in a lignin matrix" or something like that)

hshshshshsh 1y ago
Non tree plants still require you assume what a tree is.
- mrkickling 1y ago
  Ok, but all plants have leaves so you would only have to agree on what a plant is. You are trying to make a point but it makes no sense. EDIT: you could also have totally separate definitions on what wood and leaves are without talking about trees or plants, don't you think?
  - hshshshshsh 1y ago
    Sure. But when most people think of plants they already use a tree like thing as mental model. People who have only seen non tree plants doesn't exist. And nor does any non tree plant leaves help you generate a tree leaf.

lproven 1y ago

No you don't. Lots of plants have leaves. A few don't, some primitive because they hadn't evolved them yet (e.g. algae) and a few because they lost them (broom, cacti). If there were no trees and nobody had ever seen a tree you could still explain leaves. Lots of plants have wood. Things that aren't trees have wood. They're called bushes. Wood is a thing separate from trees. Not all trees have wood: bananas grow on really big herbs that people call trees because they are tree-sized, but they're herbs. Palm trees aren't really made of wood.

hshshshshsh 1y ago
Yeah. But that wood and that leaves of plant don't get you a tree. You are filling in the blanks that makes something a tree with information you already know about trees.
- lproven 1y ago
  I do not understand what you are getting at. :-(