Seraphim

"Common sense is only applicable in when your talking about things that are common, and your ignorance on this subject makes it clear that you haven't had much exposure to basic chemistry and physics."

My reply : No, if whoever created this thread knows common sense, basic chemistry and physics, he or she couldn't have created this thread or waste himself/herself in a Yoga class. If the person who came out with the question "Why I cannot recharge my laptop?" had common sense, basic chemistry and physics, he couldn't have asked the stupid question since he could know that laptop IS NOT a freaking living organism as I stated the my 4 freaking questions earlier.

"1. The laptop battery is a single unit, whereas the human battery is distributed throughout the entire machine. You can give blood, but that only removes parts of the battery, not the whole thing. It would be analogous to removing a cell in the laptops battery. It would still work, just have a slightly reduced life."

My reply : Absurb ... know why?

1. Laptops cannot donate their power to another laptop, both will "die" when the power run out.

2. Humans do not need power adapters to change anything, they can consume any organic compound and the body will break it down for them. In your 1st grade science experiment, I bet you learn that lemon can conduct electricity due to it's juice, right? Try squeezing a lemon into your laptop and see what happens.


"2. LIon batteries are charged by applying a current that causes a chemical change within the battery. The human body takes in the pre-changed chemicals directly, and excretes the post-changed chemicals. There are batteries that run on decaying matter, and fuel cells work somewhat like this, taking in the raw chemicals it needs and releasing a lower energy by-product."

My reply : Fine here, except you missing one point. The whole process between the two is different. Human process an organic substance within them and use it to power up their cells, they do not plug into anything and draw anything. And what do you mean by "human takes in pre-changed chemical"? What pre-changed chemical?

In LIon battery you mentioned about, the current enters the battery and get those elements excited enough to give power when turned on. Which means the role of the electricity is not as food but as a catalyst - increasing the charge carried by negative and positive ions within the battery to a much higher state and it will reduce as the battery get used up, thus it cannot be considered as food.

Feather

Seraphim, you obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

A chemical reaction is a chemical reaction, whether it's started because two chemicals bump into each other (food processing in humans) or because the free charge configuration in a mixture of chemicals is altered by imposing an electric field (recharging battery in a laptop).

The point is this: no body will be able to "recharge" unless it consumes other, external chemicals (food). No laptop will be able to recharge unless it is provided an external power source (electrical outlet).

You can't claim one is "different" fundamentally from the other, because no such difference exists.

NialScorva

Yoga is great for flexibility if you ignore all the mystical mumbo jumbo. A laptop is not a living being, that is trivially true. The original statement of contention revolved around whether humans chould "transfer" energy to another to achieve any type of benefit. The answer is yes, but not the yes you gave. Using just our bodies, we can transfer kinetic, thermal, and chemical energy, though chemical requires the recipient to consume part of the giver.

That's it. The end. Nothing else.

The laptop example is just a way of saying that there is no other "energy" coming off one's hands and your claim of "independant energy" is completely ad hoc.


Sure they can, with a little bit of wiring it's not that big a deal. Humans cannot donate their power either (except through canabalism), so I don't see how this is a comparison.

You can't eat grass or most tree leaves, nor can you eat wood or bark. There are poisonous insects that you cannot consume. However, there are plenty of animals that do eat these things through biological "adaptors".

Lemon juice is an acid that combined with two types of metal plates can produce a voltage. Make a large enough battery of them and you could very easily power a laptop. Keeping with the analogy, the laptop would starve because you aren't feeding it enough. It's like feeding your dog a gram of food each day and wondering why he doesn't survive.

What do you think happens to the food you eat? Using the your nominclature, the food is already in a "higher state" and get's used up till it cannot be considered food. It must be replaced by new food. It's analogous to giving the laptop a new battery everytime the old one dies. In that regard, a laptop is actually *better* at dealing with energy than we could ever hope to be.

Arrowman

Hi
First off: Physics to Year 12 (Senior High) level, Chemistry to 1st year University level.
Common sense to 45 Years Of Life level

In relation to the laptop not being a "living organism" and my question being "stupid" - to quote from my response to you: I knew at the outset that the laptop failed your test of "living organism"; I was waiting to see your explanation of the difference.

You have failed to explain any fundamental characteristic of a living organism which provides the capacity to transfer "energy" (you have also failed to define "energy") from one organism to another, that is, a capacity which is not available to non-living things. Your entire argument is circular: "Living things are different from laptops because living things are different from laptops".

Oh, by the way - your reply to that was (my emphasis) I'm beginning to wonder if you realised you were talking to the same person. Are you paying attention here?

As has been shown elsewhere, this is not true, and it is not a fundamental difference between living and non-living things when it comes to energy transfer. Your statement is equally true of human beings (or equally false, depending on the restrictions you place on the energy transfer mechanism). You assert it is true because you believe it to be true. You still fail to provide even a definition of energy, let alone a non-circular argument that is not entirely based on your beliefs about phenomena which cannot be objectively demonstrated to exist.

PS Care to have a shot at LadyShea's very incisive and perceptive question from earlier? If human beings can transfer energy via touch, can we massage starving people to keep them alive, instead of feeding them?

Jeremy Pallant

Ladies and gentlemen, I notice a little hostility developing here. Please let's try and keep it from degenerating to the level of the Circumcision thread.

Seraphim

"Yoga is great for flexibility if you ignore all the mystical mumbo jumbo. A laptop is not a living being, that is trivially true. The original statement of contention revolved around whether humans chould "transfer" energy to another to achieve any type of benefit. The answer is yes, but not the yes you gave. Using just our bodies, we can transfer kinetic, thermal, and chemical energy, though chemical requires the recipient to consume part of the giver."

My reply : Those kinetic, thermal and chemical energy which you state can be tranfered doesn't work on laptop's battery, simply because kinetic and thermal energy is wrong kind of energy as required by the battery and chemical energy is too "raw" where the battery has no means to digest it and suck it's energy out like a human.

"The laptop example is just a way of saying that there is no other "energy" coming off one's hands and your claim of "independant energy" is completely ad hoc."

My reply : When I used the word "Independant energy" for the first time, I used on the laptop which means laptop doesn't produce it's own energy (via battery or other means) without outside help - in this case, charging its battery.

"Sure they can, with a little bit of wiring it's not that big a deal. Humans cannot donate their power either (except through canabalism), so I don't see how this is a comparison."

My reply : Comparison exist because that as a living breathing organism, human have better ways to manage their body than a laptop. Human can eat more to store as fat, use activities such as weight-lifing etc to increase their stamina etc thus reducing their need for more energy to run efficient for a longer time. Laptop on the other hand doesn't have all this features, it suck energy out of the battery, put it into varies equipments and when it runs out, the laptop goes out of commision till the next recharge. I do see a big comparison here.

"2. Humans do not need power adapters to change anything, they can consume any organic compound and the body will break it down for them. In your 1st grade science experiment, I bet you learn that lemon can conduct electricity due to it's juice, right? Try squeezing a lemon into your laptop and see what happens. "

"You can't eat grass or most tree leaves, nor can you eat wood or bark. There are poisonous insects that you cannot consume. However, there are plenty of animals that do eat these things through biological "adaptors". "

My reply : You can eat grass and tree barks - I heard of reports that starving people in Somalia and Sudan rip barks and grass and eat them when food is scarse. As for poisonous insects and such, human can eat them if they know how to remove the poison - Fuku fish in Japan is one example.

"Lemon juice is an acid that combined with two types of metal plates can produce a voltage. Make a large enough battery of them and you could very easily power a laptop. Keeping with the analogy, the laptop would starve because you aren't feeding it enough. It's like feeding your dog a gram of food each day and wondering why he doesn't survive."

My reply : I was talking about raw material - not the current it produced. Raw material as in lemon juice without any added seasoning like metal plates. What I mean to say was that Laptop cannot process raw materials on its own even so the properties in a lemon could be used as a electricity producer. In that same context, it will have no use for the body's energy - kinetic, heat or any other form even if you connect yourself into the laptop and supply it directly.

"What do you think happens to the food you eat? Using the your nominclature, the food is already in a "higher state" and get's used up till it cannot be considered food. It must be replaced by new food. It's analogous to giving the laptop a new battery everytime the old one dies. In that regard, a laptop is actually *better* at dealing with energy than we could ever hope to be. "

My reply : That's exactly what is the difference between a laptop and a human. Whenever our energy run's low, we get new supply in form of food, nothing is dumped into us and expect our pervious food to be charged and conduct power for us.

In layman's term - the power we get comes from the food we consume, the waste will be taken out after the process is over and new food is needed. In laptop, nothing is taken out (except maybe heat and noise) when a power is produce simply because the power factory is never brough it and out like a food does in a human.

Seraphim

"Hi
First off: Physics to Year 12 (Senior High) level, Chemistry to 1st year University level.
Common sense to 45 Years Of Life level

In relation to the laptop not being a "living organism" and my question being "stupid" - to quote from my response to you:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew you'd say that. I must be psychic.
Of course. But you still do not explain the "principle" which supports the transfer of "energy" (other than heat, but I doubt that it's heat you are referring to) from one living creature to another via touch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew at the outset that the laptop failed your test of "living organism"; I was waiting to see your explanation of the difference.
You have failed to explain any fundamental characteristic of a living organism which provides the capacity to transfer "energy" (you have also failed to define "energy") from one organism to another, that is, a capacity which is not available to non-living things. Your entire argument is circular: "Living things are different from laptops because living things are different from laptops"."

My reply : If you wanted to know about the difference or characteristics of a living organism, ASK next time.

"Oh, by the way - your reply to that was (my emphasis) "

My reply : Your what?

"I'm beginning to wonder if you realised you were talking to the same person. Are you paying attention here?"

My reply : NO, I didn't realised I was talking to the same guy, I was referring to some dude named DarkDruid who created this thread ... don't tell me that is you ...

"As has been shown elsewhere, this is not true, and it is not a fundamental difference between living and non-living things when it comes to energy transfer. Your statement is equally true of human beings (or equally false, depending on the restrictions you place on the energy transfer mechanism). You assert it is true because you believe it to be true. You still fail to provide even a definition of energy, let alone a non-circular argument that is not entirely based on your beliefs about phenomena which cannot be objectively demonstrated to exist."

My reply : Frankly speaking, I'm not sure which phenomena you are talking about. Is it the energy transfering phenomena? Or transfering from human to laptop? Or just a belief on this whole process?

" ... LadyShea's very incisive and perceptive question from earlier? If human beings can transfer energy via touch, can we massage starving people to keep them alive, instead of feeding them? "

My reply : Someone here said that only energy produced by human is heat and kinetics, how will that save a starving people? I have no obligation to answer this since I didn't come out with either statement.

Arrowman

It was you who introduced the distinction between living organism and laptop in the context of energy transfer. I [and others] have been asking you to explain that difference ever since.

I was quoting your reply to me - that is: "No, you're not [psychic]. You just use a bit common sense that the person who came out with this analog in the first place." See the quote block immediately below the "(my emphasis)". In so doing, I emphasised some of your words using italics. The words "(my emphasis)" are my explanation that I am adding something (the emphasis) to your quote which was not in the original.

Look - read the posts, and who posted them, and reply accordingly. To ignore or completely lose track of which individual you are responding to, (a) is rude and (b) shows you are not paying attention to the discussion. No, I am not DarkDruid, I am Arrowman.

Well don't ask me which phenomena I'm talking about. You're the one who has asserted that some phenomenon exists which relates to energy transfer between living organisms (apparently other than heat). To make it perfectly clear: I am asking you to describe, and provide evidence for if possible, the phenomenon which you believe provides for transfer of "energy" (and while you're at it, define what sort of "energy" we're talking about) between living organisms via some form of touch or massage (and which at the same time does not provide for transfer of "energy" from a living organism to a non-living object which is capable of storing energy, such as a laptop).

Sorry, you do need to answer. You have claimed that some (undefined) form of energy can be transferred between living organisms. You seem to agree that this energy is not heat or kinetic. Fine. What is it? And whatever it is, can it be used in substitution for food? If not, what purpose does it serve?

Seraphim

"It was you who introduced the distinction between living organism and laptop in the context of energy transfer. I [and others] have been asking you to explain that difference ever since."

My reply : No, no one asked and I thought everyone KNOWS what is the characteristics of a living organism ... apparently I was wrong.

Here goes - Most common characteristics in a living organism, someone add if I miss something :

1. Living organism has living cells within it's structure - which does multiply, break, divide and all those to make sure that the organism is whole.

2. Breaths - except maybe bacteria and single cell organism - not sure they breath or not.

3. Reproduce sexually or without sex (usually single cell organisms).

4. Capable of some sort intelligence or basic mechanisms - single cell organism can breed on their own without outside help.

"I was quoting your reply to me - that is: "No, you're not [psychic]. You just use a bit common sense that the person who came out with this analog in the first place." See the quote block immediately below the "(my emphasis)". In so doing, I emphasised some of your words using italics. The words "(my emphasis)" are my explanation that I am adding something (the emphasis) to your quote which was not in the original."

My reply : Oh ... Thanks.

"Look - read the posts, and who posted them, and reply accordingly. To ignore or completely lose track of which individual you are responding to, (a) is rude and (b) shows you are not paying attention to the discussion. No, I am not DarkDruid, I am Arrowman."

My reply : OK, Thanks.

"Well don't ask me which phenomena I'm talking about. You're the one who has asserted that some phenomenon exists which relates to energy transfer between living organisms (apparently other than heat). To make it perfectly clear: I am asking you to describe, and provide evidence for if possible, the phenomenon which you believe provides for transfer of "energy" (and while you're at it, define what sort of "energy" we're talking about) between living organisms via some form of touch or massage (and which at the same time does not provide for transfer of "energy" from a living organism to a non-living object which is capable of storing energy, such as a laptop)."

My reply : I did? Oh well, heat and kinetic energy created by the body cannot be used to recharge the laptop, so that's it ... discussion is over. I never argument about transfering anything between two living organism, just between a human and a laptop, thus the argument is complete with verdict that since human produce only kinetic and heat energy, those energy is not suitable to use to recharge a battery.

"Sorry, you do need to answer. You have claimed that some (undefined) form of energy can be transferred between living organisms. You seem to agree that this energy is not heat or kinetic. Fine. What is it? And whatever it is, can it be used in substitution for food? If not, what purpose does it serve? "

My reply : I never said that there is a 3rd form of energy generated by the body. As long as the findings fit the argument, I don't see what wrong with it.
In this argument, body produces heat and kinetic, thus laptop which uses electricity cannot use it to recharge the battery ... case close.

As LadyShea's claim about massaging and all, ASK her. I'm not about to answer for someone else.

Arrowman

[sarcasm]Good heavens! I never knew that.[/sarcasm]

Now, how about providing a description of the characteristic(s) of a living organism which are actually relevant to your original assertion (my emphasis in all quotes which follow):

Further....

But earlier you said, and I repeat:

And finally:

Are you serious? I know English isn't your first language and I'm doing my best to allow for that - but - [b]Lady Shea's question was a challenge to you, not a claim by her. Read it again:

Don't bother replying Seraphim; I'm done with this.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>