Beats me!

Any thoughts??

There are no such things as human atoms or air atoms.. seriously..

There are no such things as human atoms or air atoms.. seriously..

lol, then I´m way off base when I say we are all made of the same thing? Air, humans, stones, water...

Humans, and air for that matter, exist of many kinds of molecules.
A molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by strong chemical bonds ~ Wikipedia

Humans, and air for that matter, exist of many kinds of molecules.
A molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by strong chemical bonds ~ Wikipedia

so all atoms are the same?

lol, then I´m way off base when I say we are all made of the same thing? Air, humans, stones, water...

All atoms contain neutrons, electrons and protons. Well except Hydrogen.

so all atoms are the same?

No...

There are many different atoms. Did you ever hear of elements ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

No...

There are many different atoms. Did you ever hear of elements ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

oh, now it makes more sense :D

I feel like... punk´d

I feel like... punk´d

LOL why ?

LOL why ?

´Cause I was in an alternative reality were I didn´t remember that the elements are actually atoms. All of a sudden, I was in a Universe were everything is literally the same substance. :o

Human atoms taste better.

Yup, no difference at all between an oxygen atom in, say ATP in your cells and an oxygen atom in CO2 in the air. Pick a human apart and you'll find a pile of atoms, none of which would have been alive, but all of which would once have been a person.

Are humans more than the sum of their parts? Is life more than the sum of its parts? Philosophy is next door.

Yup, no difference at all between an oxygen atom in, say ATP in your cells and an oxygen atom in CO2 in the air. Pick a human apart and you'll find a pile of atoms, none of which would have been alive, but all of which would once have been a person.

Are humans more than the sum of their parts? Is life more than the sum of its parts? Philosophy is next door.

This is were I was trying to get with my OP.
Is an "oxygen atom" in the human body different than an "oxygen atom" in the air?
Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner. But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

This is were I was trying to get with my OP.
Is an "oxygen atom" in the human body different than an "oxygen atom" in the air?
Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner. But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

So why didn't you say so ?

Is an "oxygen atom" in the human body different than an "oxygen atom" in the air?
No, they are exactly the same.

But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.
Hypothetically, the human would be alive. But it can't be done.

Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner.

Err, maybe atomic physicists have that view, but I can assure you that biologists (i.e., the scientists who actually study the human body) don't think in those terms.


But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

What makes you so sure of this?

Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner. But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

Life is a chemical reaction.

If you add up the value of the "raw materials" in a human body, it comes to a few dollars worth of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and so on.

What makes a human different from a rock is how the raw materials are organised. Thus, a better estimate of the value of a human being would be the cost of constructing one from scratch (in a non-biological manner) - that is, taking the raw materials and building up the proteins, cells, organs etc. by hand.

If you add up the value of the "raw materials" in a human body, it comes to a few dollars worth of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and so on.

What makes a human different from a rock is how the raw materials are organised. Thus, a better estimate of the value of a human being would be the cost of constructing one from scratch (in a non-biological manner) - that is, taking the raw materials and building up the proteins, cells, organs etc. by hand.

Even then, all you get is a dead body.

Err, maybe atomic physicists have that view, but I can assure you that biologists (i.e., the scientists who actually study the human body) don't think in those terms.
In what terms do they think then?

What makes you so sure of this?
Because life cannot be measured (or quantified) with current technology.

Even then, all you get is a dead body.

How do you know ? Dead people are dead for a reason..

How do you know ? Dead people are dead for a reason..

The only reason dead people are dead is ´cause they don´t have life in their bodies.

The only reason dead people are dead is ´cause they don´t have life in their bodies.

Hmm I thought they were dead because something vital was damaged :shrug:
If you are going to say that they are dead because they don't have life in their bodies, you will have to define 'life' first.

The only reason dead people are dead is ´cause they don´t have life in their bodies.That's like taking an old but working pocket-watch apart, stripping it to its constituent components (cogs, wheels, springs etc) and then putting these pieces in a box and wondering why it doesn't work.
The pieces need to be undamaged and assembled in the right place.

Even then the pocket-watch might not work - because it does need energy to work. So you wind the handle.

Obviously, putting the energy back into a human "body" is not quite as simple, and after it starts the watch is incapable of winding itself, but other than that I think the analogy works ok.

:D

Hmm I thought they were dead because something vital was damaged :shrug:
Well, if a person is fully healthy (except for his heart) and he dies of a heart-attack, then the heart is damaged, and that is the reason the person is dead. But if you put a brand new compatible heart in the person, it just wouldn´t work, he is already dead. "Life" would be the only thing missing.

If you are going to say that they are dead because they don't have life in their bodies, you will have to define 'life' first.
No can do man.

Well, if a person is fully healthy (except for his heart) and he dies of a heart-attack, then the heart is damaged, and that is the reason the person is dead. But if you put a brand new compatible heart in the person, it just wouldn´t work, he is already dead. "Life" would be the only thing missing.

Hm thats not entirely true. If you can get the heart in fast enough you should be able to revive the person. The reason you can't do it after several minutes is because all the other tissue begins to die as well through suffocation, the brain first.


No can do man.

Well, then 'the only reason dead people are dead is because they don't have life in their bodies' is a meaningless statement.

Well, if a person is fully healthy (except for his heart) and he dies of a heart-attack, then the heart is damaged, and that is the reason the person is dead. But if you put a brand new compatible heart in the person, it just wouldn´t work, he is already dead. "Life" would be the only thing missing.
The brain begins to damage itself through anaerobic chemical reactions very quickly when it's deprived of oxygen. That's why you can't just pump the water out of the lungs of a drowning victim and restart their heart - by the time you get around to reviving them, the brain will be so badly damaged that it wont be able to function. If the brain hasn't been without oxygen for very long, you can indeed revive a dead person.

Look up "ischemic cascade" for more information on how your brain rudely destroys itself if you stop feeding it oxygen.

In what terms do they think then?

Well, I'm not a biologist myself, but they seem to view the body as a complex set of interdependent processes and organs.


Because life cannot be measured (or quantified) with current technology.

Oh? Funny, it seems to me that people have long been able to distinguish a live body from a dead one. Even if your statement were true, though, how would that add up to proof that a life consists of more than the body's constituent components?

Because life cannot be measured (or quantified) with current technology.
I seem to recall you saying this before. I'll ask you the same thing now that I asked you then: If life can't be measured or quantified with current technology, then why are doctors able to use machines to tell if a person is alive or dead?

You seem to think that when a body stops physically working it's merely a symptom of death. But it's not just a symptom - it's the definition of death. And whether or not a body is functioning properly certainly is something that we can measure and quantify.

Even then, all you get is a dead body.

How do you know?

If you add up the value of the "raw materials" in a human body, it comes to a few dollars worth of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and so on.
Sure, the atoms in the human body aren't that valuable. It's the particular arrangement of them that makes the human body valuable. If you add up the value of the various parts of the human body, you hit a value of $45 million!

This price tag on the human body is based on a survey published in Wired magazine. It found that vital organs are no longer the most valuable body parts. Rather, bone marrow heads the list…priced at $23 million, based on 1,000 grams at $23,000 per gram.
DNA can fetch $9.7 million, while extracting antibodies can bring $7.3 million. A lung is worth $116,400, a kidney $91,400 and a heart $57,000.

Women’s eggs are costlier than men's sperm. The survey found that a fertile woman could sell 32 egg cells over eight years for $224,000; however, for a man to earn the same amount, he would have to make 12 sperm donations a month for 20 years.

The prices are based on cost estimates taken from hospitals and insurance companies, and are based on projected prices only in the United States. Of course, the prices also assume that all these substances can be extracted from living tissue for sale.

Although this break down is illegal, unethical and also impossible, you should not feel like a million dollars anymore. You can feel like $45 million, instead! http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/archive/2003/quiz/humanWorth.html