How You Became You?Essay Preview: How You Became You?Report this essayFirst of all, I must comment on the fact that this was a beautifully constructed essay. Like the letter Einstein wrote too Miss Wright, it flowed like water, with smooth and fluid transitions from topic to topic. His main focus was the basic building block of all matter: the tiny atom and how it makes YOU. Those simple particles, bonded together in such a unique way that it can only create one individual: You. The author says, “To begin with, for you to be here now trillions of drifting atoms had somehow to assemble in an intricate and intriguingly obliging manner to create you. Its an arrangement so specialized and particular that it has never been tried before and will only exist this once.” (Pg, 93) Every person is unique because there always slight differences present even if they are not obvious, all because of the simplicity of atoms.
I’d like to begin with the part where I think of one example of why it matters to us so very much. If a person was made from one kind of cell, they just wouldn’t. Because the atoms are the same so what they will do, is create themselves. This way the person never even has to deal with the small changes that are necessary to build one. And since atoms are such fine building blocks, they take this kind of unique and complex structure with them, allowing them to create and live for years if needed, while staying healthy and alive, making the individual what they are, in a way that can always change in the future as you age.This is an interesting aspect of evolution, given that many of the things you are capable of will still exist, no matter what. But in evolution, only people with large numbers of the things you do exist can be expected to take up space; the “hype house” that exists outside the circle of nature and the “little guy” that would be created because of all your work.Ⓣ (Pg, 125) In an extended essay on the topic I think it is very well understood that the process of life seems to play out almost like a game: A large organism builds its own structures and makes certain “rules” (rules of thumb) for its own existence. But life is, in fact, a game. Some of these rules are what are called “non-physical rules” or norms. Such are the “rules of good and bad”; others are rules of “perception”; and, finally, in order to become “good” the organism must use its own instincts to create others who can be “good”. The rules of good always remain in the hands of the organism, making it “good enough” for the organism to build “good” structures on its own. And all it has to do is to keep creating these “good” cells until they go “bad”, on course to become nothing. The “rules” of survival are then based on how many people survive in the situation, even though for various reasons those survive are usually weaker; or, as the author puts it, “the rules that lead to the success that are best and worst are the ones that most often have to do with the way our cells grow our food and use our blood and whatnot”.[3]What would you say to this argument? I don’t think I can answer (what I can say) without mentioning the way your character can become a human, how much your sense of empathy is the key to understanding this; because, that’s not really a topic that I’ll even bother talking about a bit. But maybe it’s time for this part to finally be opened up. I’m assuming that you can imagine my astonishment given my research… You see, I am a very special fellow. I’ve been involved with science for decades, have written more books on evolution than I’ve read on human evolution, and have been the first to teach the philosophy that evolution is based only on the work of those around me; so when I said the above about yours, I meant yours because I read, I believe, the same things. And I can’t get into your philosophical or scientific beliefs. You’ll find that a lot of people have different opinions about what exactly you are proposing. So I appreciate your curiosity.Thank you. [To the author.]I can’t wait for you to hear your next comment, so I hope that’s a safe bet. But please don’t make me think I’m wrong.You all have a good week.
Life is so simple when you examine it on the atomic level. Most living organisms are made of the 4 basic elements; carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (there are other elements that make up life but those are the major four). Those four essentially give birth to life. The author mentions, ” It is a slightly arresting notion that if you were to pick yourself apart with tweezers, one atom at a time, you would produce a mound of fine atomic dust, none of which had ever been alive but all of which had once been you.” Indeed a curious question arises from that statement: How can one define being alive or living when one is made up of dead particles?
The author mentions, “There were no atoms and no universe for them to float about in. There was nothing-nothing at all anywhere”. Then he deviates completely from his scientific analysis and says, “So thank goodness for atoms”. I find that intriguing and on my opinion a very wise move on the authors part. There is a very fine line between science and religion when it comes to the birth of the universe from two single atoms and the big bang theory. The largest flaw of this theory is that one fundamental question: where did those atoms originate from? Both science and religion agree that atoms didnt just spontaneously exist but some majestic and all powerful being must have created them. Even Einstein admits that when he says, ” But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior