日光 wrote:But what's organic about any of them? We can't be an organism just because we have organs. ;p
What's organic about my two examples? Simple, they have carbon in them. That's the general definition, since life on earth is "Carbon-based"
Moderator: Moderators
日光 wrote:But what's organic about any of them? We can't be an organism just because we have organs. ;p
日光 wrote:Water is oxygen and hydrogen. Suckerrrrr!
日光 wrote:Yeah, but carbon can't be the base if it's not the fundamental part, and water is the primary part, not only by its many, many roles but by volume. Sure, we need other things for water to become more than it is, but, then again, those things in our body need water to even have a body. Water is therefor what we're based on, and thus we are water-based lifeforms. ^_^
日光 wrote:Still, water isn't derived from carbon; it's derived from two other elements. Also, water can be the basis since the combined elements create a molecule that acts very differently from both hydrogen and oxygen. I don't see the logic in having to parse it down to a component that has no effect other than what it does in its combined role. Saying that hydrogen is the basis is like saying that one citizen of many makes a nation; you can't have a nation without enough people, and you can't have water without its own requirements. Water is water, not hydrogen, so we are water-based.
日光 wrote:Then someone needs to put a stop to the perception that we're seventy percent water and instead say that we're one-hundred percent mixed stuff. ;p
日光 wrote:Well, sometimes I think that most people don't even use that much... Maybe a little bit too wet behind the ears? XD
I might consider believing it as far as memory goes, but I'm sure that we use a lot more of our brain for countless things. And just because we don't remember something doesn't mean that we haven't used up anything; either it was used up in that the neurons died, or there simply aren't that many receptors connected to it to easily get a link to reach it. Our brain heavily relies on relation, and the more things that we can relate to something, the easier it is to remember. Which is why the most common things are usually things we'll never forget, even if we ended up not experiencing it again for decades.
I use just one-percent of my brain. To think where no one has thought before. ;p
日光 wrote:I wouldn't agree with one-hundred percent unless I was certain if it was based on the fact of how the electricity runs through our noggins. Just laughter was shown to cause most of the brain to be active. In that sense, I would tentatively agree that all of our brain is "on", though perhaps not all of it at the same time, all of the time. I don't really know; these chemical factories that we call our bodies are very complex and my brain is but a humble pair of hemispheres.
日光 wrote:Heh-heh-heh... I like the parts about the psychic abilities. The brain is capable of a lot of things if you know how to use it, but that's not because it's something that's not used. You just need the right conditions. Ancient sculptors are good examples of what the brain is capable of without any significant help from various tools beyond, say, a chisel and hammer. There are still many things in the past that are still not understood or have been baffling the modern minds about how things had been accomplished so long ago.
To me, we use most if not all of our brain in some form or another, but there are degrees, just as there are degrees of electric frequencies used in our brains, and at varying times. Or something like that. You know, anyone who can handle a brush can paint, but someone with enough development in certain areas in the brain can paint well. It's just like muscle, in that we have it and use it, but the more that we use it, and thus need it, the more it adapts for more efficiency.
And now I'm lost. Hmmmm... Brain fart. <.<:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests