Catalyst - Discussion
 

Now what I thought originally was another word for "change" as a username. Because I want to change some things, and I didn't want to have a username called "change" so I came up with Catalyst via a thesaurus.

Now what the topic really is, I would call the human body a catalyst really. But more in the sense of if you take medication for something. For instance, I'm epileptic (seizures), and I take medication for that. BUT, you still have seizures, but the medication reduces (well hopefully anyways) them from happening. But you're not actually "changing" the human body. What are your thoughts?

I know if you were to go to a biologist and mention this they'd be like "What the hell?", but again, what do you guys think?

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

You are changing the human body. You're changing your insides and your nerves, so the seizures happen less often. They don't go away, but they don't happen as often, and a CHANGE has to take place for that to happen. I guess. =P

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

But do you think that makes sense? The body being a catalyst overall - whether you take medication or if you intake food / liquids / other things?

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

The reactions when you take the medicine go in withdrawl, and they move around in your body, or disappear for a while. They make a change, going away and coming back, even if you can't feel or see it? But who would want to see stuff happening in your body? O.o

Anyway, your body is full of chemicals. It's not like a mechanical reaction or anything. You're not beating j00rself up. XD!!

Back on topic, no, I don't think it makes sense. A lot of facts about our bodies don't make sense when you just look at it from the outside though. Our bodies go through a chemical change, to reduce the viruses, colds, and conditions we have for a few hours. Which is basically what a catalyst is. The pills couldn't have a chemical reaction without our insides, so our insides are surely involved.

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

So that'd be pretty much what I'm saying. Our body is a catalyst in a sense. Adding more to it only changes more.

And when I made my username, I just modified the definition, but in the sense so it stays in line.

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

Basically, yes. =D

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

This seems to make sense to some but not to others...it's odd really.

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

A catalyst is a substance that can change another substance without being changed itself. In the situation that you give, neither the medication nor the human body are catalysts. The human body is automatically disqualified as it's the entity undergoing change; it's not changing anything itself. The medication isn't a catalyst either, since it's absorbed (ie changed) in the reaction that changes the human body.

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

Could you give an example - preferably non-scientific?

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

I can't really think of many non-scientific examples for a catalyst, simply because catalysts are almost exclusively applied scientifically. Catalysts are generally used to make chemicals react faster.

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

the human body doesnt change things around it without changing itself.
everything it does comes back to affect it in some way.....

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

This is what I put in the "Reason for picking username thread":

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

You may want to cut the second last sentence. It makes it entirely obvious that you don't really have more than a vague understanding of what a catalyst is.

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

Now I understand what you mean. So basically I misunderstood the term, and "completely changed it" and put a new definition?

Re: Catalyst - Discussion
 

...or something to that affect. :rolleyes:

A catalyst is an agent that brings about change... usually, people use in when talking about chemical reactions. The only non-chemical one I can think of is in a hypothetical example: The war protester's speech was a catalyst in forming the anarchy movement - especially since the citizens negatively viewed how the government was handling the situation in Iraq.

:confused: ...well?