s1eep Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Water doesn't turn to ice, because it's surrounded by materials that have room temperature ~20 C or so. If water will touch something colder, like f.e. piece of metal on which there is dry ice, or liquid nitrogen, energy will flow from water molecules to metal, then to dry ice. Metal and water will be cooled down, dry ice will be heated. And water will freeze in seconds. Once all dry ice, liquid nitrogen is gone (vaporize), metal piece and water will be heated by surrounding it materials (like air), back to ambient temperature. There is no intelligence, nor personality in this process. It's simply flow of energy to equilibrium, when energy is spreading equally in all materials. Energy is it's personality here, or what I mean when I say personality; it's characteristics, attributes, mechanisms; what I would call it's 'nature' but it's probably not accepted.
Sensei Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Energy/mass is property of particles. Personality is completely different thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality
Strange Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Energy is it's personality here, or what I mean when I say personality ... Well, I suppose you can redefine words to mean something completely different, but it doesn't really aid communication.
s1eep Posted October 4, 2014 Author Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Energy/mass is property of particles. Personality is completely different thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality Okay, you notice the differences between personality and properties, but you can't notice their similarities? I think intelligence is also ridding ones mind of stupid concepts. Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep
andrewcellini Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Okay, you notice the differences between personality and properties, but you can't notice their similarities? I think intelligence is also ridding ones mind of stupid concepts. they are both properties. that's about it. you redefined personality to make a cheap fit with energy. personality is not merely your vague "characteristics, attributes, mechanisms" or "nature." personality is the collection of cognitive, behavioral and emotional patterns. Edited October 4, 2014 by andrewcellini
s1eep Posted October 4, 2014 Author Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) they are both properties. that's about it. you redefined personality to make a cheap fit with energy. personality is not merely your vague "characteristics, attributes, mechanisms" or "nature." personality is the collection of cognitive, behavioral and emotional patterns. I could have been more precise, but now you've explained that you know the differences between personality and properties, can we analyse their similarities? Some of these very properties, as OP says, turned into humans with personalities; their properties had an effect that I'm wondering if they are related to the effect of personalities of humans; are the properties of perhaps water, and the personality of humans directly linked ? Is the mind 'prompted' by 'VY Canis Majoris'. when we think of it? Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep -1
/backslash/ Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 S1eep. You seem to continuously repeat this idea that particles have a 'personality' and are 'intelligent'. Could you give some preestablished evidence off of which you have based these theories, or have you just made them up? We're getting off topic in this thread.
andrewcellini Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 I could have been more precise, but now you've explained that you know the differences between personality and properties, can we analyse their similarities? Some of these very properties, as OP says, turned into humans with personalities; their properties had an effect that I'm wondering if they are related to the effect of personalities of humans; are the properties of perhaps water, and the personality of humans directly linked ? Is the mind 'prompted' by 'VY Canis Majoris'. when we think of it? there is no evidence that personality is a fundamental property. it seems to be emergent. i don't understand the rest of your post. how could the "properties of water" be related to "the personality of humans" aside from the biological necessity for proper function for such patterns to emerge? what properties are you talking about?
Phi for All Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Okay, you notice the differences between personality and properties, but you can't notice their similarities? I think intelligence is also ridding ones mind of stupid concepts. ! Moderator Note STOP! This is the biology section, where students come for mainstream explanations. Keep your speculations and fringe ideas away from mainstream fora. If you seriously consider these to be "stupid concepts", you may want to reconsider your membership here. Don't respond to this modnote. And everyone else, drop this tangent in respect to the very legitimate question posed by the OP.
s1eep Posted October 5, 2014 Author Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) This is very interesting. I find it amazing how such lifeless things can create something like a human through chemical reactions. How it responds to light and sends signals to the brain which then decides how to react to them. How emotions such as surprise can cause reflexes such as blinking. But then again there must be some sort of intelligence? All these atoms have come together for some sort of reason. It can't just be chemical reactions that lead these atoms to form and perform actions. It can't just be chemical reactions that forces all the species in nature to reproduce, to make more copies of itself without a clear purpose? To seek out food and water, to grow towards the light, to continue being what we call 'alive'. To want to care for a baby that might not even be it's own (Saw that in cross-species altruism thread). To pass down some important memories (such as avoid this predator or go to the other side of the south pole just to reproduce with all the other penguins without any given purpose) through DNA into their offspring. If all of these are just chemical reactions then there must be no such thing as life? It's hard to believe as I sit here with the ability to see my monitor, to move my fingers across my keyboard and to smell all the aromas around me and respond to them, think about them that all of these are just the combined work of everything within my body including all the bacteria who are also just a combination of more chemical reactions. Are we then any different to the futuristic androids we hope to create in the near future? And then when something kills us such as a disease all these chemical reactions just end? We are dead, yet all those chemicals are still there, all those atoms and structures but they do not continue to react in any way. One more thing that I don't understand is how the brain stores a consciousness/memory. Is it again just chemicals in different areas/states in the brain that allow us to remember things? My view is quite similar to yours... I don't believe we are chemical reactions, only, but also the final product of those chemical reactions; we are above the chemical reactions, as if we were God's of our own body. I, am a significance in myself, for how I'm sensed by others, for my footprint on the planet, and other things related to myself. To believe that I am only chemical reactions, shows I'm not experienced with my self or wise, I am experienced however more so with other peoples views of me---the me that's observed by another. I have the imagination to deny impulses sent by these chemical reactions. At the end of my life, when I am about to die, and I start to remember past times and the cohesive whole, the fact that I'm chemical reactions is the last evident truth that, or likely not to, cross my senses; and being that I apparently am only chemical reactions, this is obscure. And being critical with my belief, I think the universe is more so about unity than it is singularity (or individuality), and our language is categorizing things as individuals. We are united with the universe, but we have the choice to believe we are not (even though we are), and that seems to be the reason for all the disunity in society. Put it like this: they are not 'our chemical reactions', they are 'my chemical reactions'; how does the sentence, "my chemical reactions", make sense? By your definitions of self, that statement means 'chemical reactions chemical reactions'; what force leads to chemical reactions functioning as "myself" and "chemical reactions"? And my answer is, the bonding of these chemical reactions, the 'togetherness', their 'love', an abstract, flimsy concept, is a thing in itself, even though it's flimsy, incomprehensible through labelling things as singular . There are probably some things we can only comprehend whilst 'loved-up' or euphoric, maybe even under the influence of adrenaline, so no we won't be able to explain everything using these words because their visual artistry isn't as stunning as the natural world in colour and variety, we won't be able to comprehend unity by words, because they are an enmity between the united, but it's something that's prominent in the natural world, such as with males and females, we can comprehend parts at a time. If you follow the right path in life things just keep getting better and better. Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep
s1eep Posted October 5, 2014 Author Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) Okay. A. By saying that we are not only chemical reactions but the result of these chemical reactions, you are only stating the obvious. I believe that this was already assumed by most people on this thread. Please keep God's body out of this. I believe in God too, but this is a biology thread. If you want to talk about God, there is a religion category. B. Your experience and wisdom, as you put it, are complex patterns of neurons firing electrochemical impulses back and forth to each other. So is your imagination. If these chemical impulses were not occurring in you right now, you would be dead. C. The sentence, "my chemical reactions" (which is not actually a sentence), does not mean"'chemical reaction's chemical reactions". We are not a single chemical reaction, nor do we consist entirely of the action of chemicals forming/breaking ionic bonds etc. A more accurate literal translation of "my chemical reactions" would be "a complex sequence of organic molecules' chemical reactions". D. The bonding of chemicals is not an "abstract, flimsy concept". It is a process firmly grounded in reality and proved by a nearly uncountable number of highly accurate scientific experiments. If any concept is "flimsy and incomprehensible", it is yours. Please, s1eep. If you are going to post your own unproved and contradictory ideas, do it in the Speculations category. Don't confuse this guy, who is asking some fair and legitimate questions for which there are already well-established answers. Well I am obviously in disagreement with "are complex patterns of neurons firing electrochemical impulses back and forth to each other". if you mean only that, there is also the cohesive, pulsating, self of the matter. Again, revert back to my statement about "My chemical reactions", because on further inspection you'll realize it contradicts you, that is until I'm engulfed in insults and formalized hate-speech, and my words are to you, but a forgotten memory. And I don't believe in God, I was using it as an analogy. I'm not disagreeing that it's chemical reactions, I'm just saying it's not only that. As for your [C], I repeat the before notion of "My complex sequence of organic molecules, chemical reactions", and ask you again to explain how the "My" manages to function with the proceeding... Me and OP seem to have similar standpoints... Just saying... Unless you're adamant to correct mistakes you may think he has made, I'm not exactly the last person he wanted to see... I think anyway. Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep
Recommended Posts