A question of life, the universe, and everything, if the answer really isn't 42.

[Writer]

Are we truly biological? That is, should we consider ourselves mostly solid, impermeable masses comprised of tissue and organs? Perhaps we view ourselves too wholly, that instead we should view ourselves as tightly packed chemical compounds, prone to corruption by other chemical compounds with disagreeable compatibility with our own?

Consider my hands, for instance. As I type, I see ten fingers moving on impulse by the chemical triggers fired by my brain, delivered via nerve cells to my fingertips, a phenomenon governed by the physics of gravity and force as they press onto the keys. But my hands are not whole. Through a microscope they are merely the complicated chemicals that comprise skin, tissue, bones, muscles, and nerve endings. In fact, if I were to view my hands correctly, they would appear as stippled dots of individual chemicals fused together - a Monet portrait of the universe that is far more complicated than the whole images we accept as "biology."

So what say you - do you believe we are biological creatures, or are we manifestations of chemistry governed by physics?

[Lex]

1. Both.

Not mutually exclusive.

[Radio_Lady]

2. I don't know the answer, but you sound like the perfect person to go to these exhibits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BODIES..._The_Exhibition

"BODIES... The Exhibition" is a controversial exhibition showcasing preserved human bodies dissected to display bodily systems. It is currently showing in Durham, Prague, Lisbon, Seattle, Las Vegas, New York City, San Diego, and Washington DC, with a future opening planned in Pittsburgh.

The museum is set up so that one starts at the skeletal system, and more layers (muscular, nervous, circulatory, digestive, respiratory, urinary, and reproductive systems; as well as fetal development and the treated body) are added in successive rooms. Containing about twenty bodies in total, each exhibition uses real human bodies that have been preserved permanently by a process called "polymer preservation" so that they will not decay. This exhibition is organized by the publicly traded corporation, Premier Exhibitions Incorporated.

http://www.bodiestheexhibition.com/intro.html

[datasuspect]

3. the electrochemical signals that originate in the brain are part of the biological system

that constitutes our organic being.

i don't understand the nature of the question.

are you trying to present a dichotomy of some sort?

or differentiate between unlike aspects of basically the same system?

please clarify.

[Writer]

4. Here's what I'm driving at:

Is the study of biology too elementary for us to understand how we work? Should we instead focus solely on how the chemicals within our body interact to better understand, say, the development of unfriendly cancer cells? Or how we age? Or how we maintain energy as we age?

Maybe I'm asking: Why do we study biology when we can glean so much more understanding from biochemistry or chemistry?

[datasuspect]

6. i think they answered many of these questions when they mapped the human genome

as a start, maybe.

although scientific understanding is a work in progress, there is much knowledge in these fields that explain rather well the working of biological processes.

[Writer]

8. I have a theory...

that one day the study of biology will become antiquated. Like the study of phrenology.

[datasuspect]

9. well if biology ceases to have explanatory power as an actual science

you might have a point.

[Writer]

11. Hey - aren't you trained scientifically?

I can't recall.

[datasuspect]

13. i'm trained to discuss the nature of science

or i once was, but can do no actual science except for observation of natural phenomenon.

[Writer]

16. Well, okay.

I think, other than human biology and ecology, biology is getting very close to running its course, at least as an advanced science. I would guess that even the study of cellular biology is more of a chemical form of research than a biological one. I just think we can solve more biological questions through chemistry than we can through biology.

[hfojvt]

48. at a social science conference. One presenter said there were two

basic scientific paradigms, biology and physics.

I think it is a mistake to reduce everything to physics (or worse yet, chemistry, which is just a sub-branch of physics). Life acts on the world, the way other chemicals do not. Conscious life even more so. Unlike, even a simple vole, a plantain cannot see me coming and run away to fight another day.

"The extraordinary thing about the modern 'life sciences' is that they hardly ever deal with life as such, the factor x, but devote infinite attention to the study and analysis of the physiochemical body that is life's carrier. It may well be that modern science has no method for coming to grips with life as such. If this is so, let it be frankly admitted; there is no excuse for the pretense that life is nothing but physics and chemistry." EF Schumacher "A guide for the perplexed" p. 19

[Ellen Forradalom]

5. That's some good stuff yer smokin' tonight

Don't bogart that joint, my friend.

Now let's go stare at the fish tank for a while.

[Writer]

12. Sorry for the magic carpet ride.

;)

[Ellen Forradalom]

20. To the center of your mind.

Come along if you care!
Come along if you dare!

[Inchworm]

7. perception?

the mite on a mite's arse is still a mite, no?

:hi:

[Writer]

10. But the mite is comprised of little chemicals...

that interact to bite into the chemicals comprising the arse, no? :P

[Inchworm]

24. and yet...

can this go on infinitely? can you ever actually touch the mite?

:D

[Writer]

31. I can because the chemicals comprising the mite are dense enough...

to create a chemical reaction in the nerve endings of my arse, causing electrochemical signals to reach my brain telling me to slap the little fucker.

[Inchworm]

36. oh?

and that is touch?

feel me from NC :D

:hide:

[Writer]

40. Are my chemical compounds anywhere near your chemical compounds...

they would have to travel toward one another... and upon contact - BINGO!

[Inchworm]

42. can't think right now lol

wth is a Lincoln Log Sammich?

I'm finding that people on other forums may have lost touch, whereas.. we are indeed seeking it.

I'm still on other side of the fence. Touch is tricky :D

[Writer]

44. You are Inchworm. I'm sure you have plenty to play with.

:crazy:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

14. I like pizza.

:P

[Writer]

18. I like pizza, too. Especially one with olives.

Olives are tasty. :D

[Starbucks Anarchist]

23. They're also the only good part of a martini.

:D

[Writer]

33. Yummmm!

:beer:

[Connonym]

50. Yeah, that about sums it up for me

much better response than the "whaaaaaat?" forming in my brain

[Starbucks Anarchist]

52. When in doubt, mention pizza.

:rofl:

[leftofthedial]

15. I think this thread is a manifestation of chemistry

dontcha think?

[Writer]

17. No... well, yes, I do THINK...

that my single half-glass of wine could have impaired me. But it's something I've thought about for months. And I SWEAR I'm not drunk all the time. :P

[leftofthedial]

21. but if a chemical manifestation takes place in the forest,

how do you know it doesn't become a biological entity?

[Writer]

22. Because even if the chemicals are en masse, they are still chemicals...

we're just perceiving the manifestation as something biological, because we prefer to keep our universe as simple as possible.

[leftofthedial]

25. what are the chemicals pretending to be?

after all, chemicals are just a convenient human organization of atomic particles, which are in turn just a convenient human organization of subatomic particles, which may just be waves and not particles at all . . .

[Writer]

28. They could be...

but that underscores my point that biology is too basic a science for modern society.

[leftofthedial]

32. do living things function at a biological level

irrespective of their constituent chemicals?

Yes, I think. Therefore, Biology, as a scientific discipline, has relevance.

[Writer]

35. Actually I don't agree, because...

I can't think of one thing we do, including simply existing, that doesn't involve chemistry. I think its the framework of our existence (governed by physics, of course.) :)

[Ptah]

19. If you have a 48" square piece of material, say 6061, what is the diameter

of the largest pair of circles that you can cut?



You can substitute 42 for 48 if you like.

:shrug:

[Writer]

30. The answer is always 42.

;)

[Ptah]

37. Sorry, not this time.

[Writer]

39. Ptah, my highest level of mathematics was...

college algebra. I cut apart the square but didn't know the best way to cut it in order to find the radius of the first circle. I cut it into 16 squares, in fact, thinking that it would help, but I got nowhere.

[Writer]

41. The answer better not be 24, either. n/t

[Ptah]

43. No, it's closer to 27"

[Writer]

45. I'm actually much more interested in how I find the answer.

Can you help?

[Ptah]

47. .

[Lethe]

26. i think they are the same, just on a different level

Biological creatures are a subset of manifestations of chemistry governed by physics. In this case, biological creatures are made of chemicals but they also use these chemicals to regulate their environment and self replicate, etc etc

I think biology will always have a place as an important science because for many areas of research it would not be advantageous or practical to study an organism on a chemical scale. Or, as an alternative, studying the biology of an organism gives insight into the chemical processes of that organism, and vice versa.

[Inchworm]

27. I'm getting worried

do you have your towel?

:D

[Writer]

29. Indeed I do...

I never forget it. :)

[Inchworm]

34. ok

because when you adventure into the universe of wonderance; you never know when you may need it :)

:D

[Writer]

38. I've always had a crush on the character Arthur Dent...

unassuming, but hitchhiking through the universe. Wears a bathrobe. Sees/experiences new things. Wears a bathrobe. That sort of thing, including his bathrobe. :evilgrin:

[Inchworm]

46. I'm diggin the therapist

it may be philosophical lol

OK! dats it! I knew the name but was doing Soprano research and got fuzzled.. my bad

:blush:

Edit: Spaciness

[Orsino]

49. That's the definition of biology.

Given the right conditions, organic chemicals begin a complicated dance, and as soon as they hit upon a self-replicating formula, evolution begins.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

51. Been to Starbucks this morning, have you?

Obviously, I believe we are all just bozos on this bus. Whatever that means. Or that we are all manifestations of the one bozo, that our differences are mere greasepaint. This according to the scripture of the church of the firesign theater.

Scientifically, we've evolved a long way since we were just free hydrogen atoms, baby!

:hi:

[Guava Jelly]

53. We are both and neither

I think of Humans as just animals.
Human machines who are here only to eat,defecate, breed, and die.
I am no better than the worm i puncture with a fish hook and drop into the water as bait.
Or the mosquito i squash feeding off of me in the process.
Nothing special at all about us. (Except that we are a species of assholes)

[El Fuego]

54. Bio-electrical. Duh. What do you think we are?

Imaginary manifestations of fundie magic?