Possible physical explanation for therianthrophy?

So I have a sort of belief system about the nature of life, death and in a way, reincarnation. I don't consider it a spiritual belief because it doesn't involve reincarnated souls the way a lot of beliefs like this do, but it isn't exactly substantiated by science either. Call it a hypothesis, I guess. I'll try to explain as best I can.

Essentially, i believe we are the sum of our parts. Everything is made of tiny submicroscopic building blocks. Atoms make up everything, and the atoms that make up an animal are the same as the ones that make up a human or anything else. When a being dies, their body will eventually rot away, but those atoms do not stop existing, they just take a new form. So let's say you die and get buried in the ground. When flesh rots it's actually being eaten by bacteria, so part of what was you is now bacteria. Maybe a worm eats the dirt the bacteria was in so that part of you is now worm, then a bird eats the worm so that part of you is now bird, and so on. Maybe years after your passing someone plants a vegetable in the dirt that contains what was once you, your nutrients feed the plant and that part of you is now a carrot. Basically the building blocks of life are only temporarily held together in a form that is "you," and before and after your existence they are in other forms. If any of you have watched Cosmos and remember the part where Sagan explains how "we are all made of star stuff," this is basically an extension of the same idea. Perhaps these pieces have a "memory" of sorts. Those of us that feel kinship with animals feel it because some parts of us literally were animals before they were us.

For this to be true though, it would basically mean that nearly everyone would be therian. Maybe for us, our "past lives" as animals are more recent, or maybe more people have animal in them than realize it, and we're just more open to accepting it.

What do you think?

Any hypothesis must be testable, and should account for what is observed. The idea of place memory / stone tape theory is not a new one, but I am unaware of it being successfully tested. Have you given thought to a way of testing your idea?

Unfortunately I'm not sure how you'd prove it. I imagine that if it was provable with our current technology, somebody smarter than me would have done it already. I'm no physicist, but maybe there's some way (or will be a way, someday) of tracking where a particular atom originally came from?

I really like the idea proposed here that we are supposedly composed of animals due to the way atoms work, and how it carries from one state of life to the next as atoms never truly die off. Though with this I have my own counter to the theory, and I'd love to not only go off of this theory but also try to show evidence supporting it could or couldn't work out. Be prepared for a lengthy reply birds and boys


Concerning the theory itself

The idea that an atom will never die is theoretically possible once one has achieved the understanding of how the atom works. As stated in the article here used for mainly reference (Chemistry class knowledge wears off after time after all) (Are Atoms Immortal?), an atom sustains itself with the use of balancing protons and electrons so that both quantities are at an equal amount. However, atoms have the ability to break down when the number of neutrons is incorrect (meaning Helium has two neutrons, and if one were to be lost it would be the incorrect number of neutrons within the element) then the atom will shoot off a subatomic particle in an attempt to stabilize itself from the unstable state. We cannot determine when breakdowns will occur precisely, but we can theorize such using the concept of "half life".

Though interestingly enough, atoms have an infinite number of protons and neutrons to the point where, theoretically, it could improve upon itself to make it's half life so long that it is essentially eternal, thus supporting the idea of how an atom will never die. But, this creates conflict as the elements we are aware of in this day and age all have a half life ranging from a mere couple of days to as long as 18 sextillion years, though this incredible feat of elements having incredible half lives is also possible due to radioactive materials. Basically, the half life of elements that are not radioactive are not as long as those that are radioactive (though Bismuth destroys this theory if I'm not mistaken) (this theory could also be wrong, but for the sake of the argument we will argue it is). This means that, theoretically, our atoms will breakdown overtime but not quick enough so that they cannot convert over to another state of life or be picked up upon, but this raises the question of can atoms convert to another state of matter that isn't their own?

Going off of the conclusion that atoms within ourselves and within animals are the same, we could technically say yes but I argue our atoms vary as, while although we are all mammals, there is a different structure set up within animals that allowed them to stay walking on all fours and acting as they do as opposed to our structure which has allowed us to become bipedal and evolve as we have as a species. Meaning, with my argument, that atoms cannot convert over to another state of life after we pass, and this could especially be the case concerning converting to plants as vegetation and human life are very different structures.

Now, let's assume that my argument is incorrect, and our atoms could indeed convert over without issue or variance. Technically speaking those atoms would at one point or another cease to exist if we're continuing to follow the law of half life, meaning that while the atoms would still be there to be picked up and carried over to somewhere, they will eventually inevitably divide and cease to exist. BUT, for an atom to stop existing entirely this presumably is a tremendous duration that expands over several decades, perhaps even centuries, which allows the carrying over of atoms from one who has passed to an animal that has passed to a new being that has not passed yet, meaning that technically speaking the atoms of that previous individual and that animal are within our bodies that we are not aware of.

If this is all the case, we would certainly have within ourselves the smallest of percentages of animal (whichever species it may be), and could explain as to why there are so many four legged Therians and Otherkin walking around as these animals would come into direct contact with the atoms. BUT, I argue that we would not get memories from this as atoms do not have the ability to store information as we do with memory, meaning they cannot remember. So how does one explain past lives and memories? I'm uncertain of this, but I'm welcome to anyone who might want to add upon what I already have stated concerning the convergence of atoms from one state of life to another, and how this could carry over memories.


Going off of this theory

Going off of what has already been stated, it could be argued that everyone does indeed have some animal within themselves to a degree of which they may not be aware of, but the question arises as to how do Therians awaken as a Therian and why don't others do the same? Couldn't everyone be a Therian?

I'd like to refer back to my theory on social conditioning that has resulted in the emergence of non-human feelings within the human conscious. Whether one is disordered or not (meaning one is diagnosed with let's say ADHD or Schizophrenia), there will be a point in everyone's life that one learns what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior to have both in public and at home. If a child were to begin barking, running on fours, eating out of bowl with their mouths, the instinct of the parent is to correct that behavior and teach them that it is inherently wrong. Some children don't display this behavior at all while others display behaviors that are indeed animalistic but not stereotypical (meaning one could show behavior of being a bird like myself but not showcase stereotypical animal behavior as a child), and this is where the differentiation of who is a Therian and who isn't comes into play.

Because we have these behaviors rejected, we have a sense of something is wrong within ourselves and naturally, as human beings, we desire to seek an answer as we fear the unknown within and outside of ourselves. This is where the feeling of non-humanness is created and dwells, due to the rejection of behaviors and the formulating of the idea that something is wrong within the child and must be corrected immediately. When one comes across Therianthropy they are relieved to have an explanation, and thus begin exploring the topic to then perhaps later identify as a Therian themselves.


These are just my theories and I'm very open to having anyone suggest anything or even add on!

Wow @woof075 that is a long post. I had trouble following to be frank.

My answer will be much shorter.

(2019-08-08 0:55)PNWolf Wrote:  What do you think?

I think the ideas that "atoms can be transferred from one person to the other and serve the same purpose" and "atoms store information while being part of one person and can communicate this internal state while being part of another person" are mutually exclusive. The reasons should be obvious.

There are also other faults, like the fact that eating an apple, definitely gives you it's atoms, but doesn't make you any more apple-like. Also, we humans exchange all of our atoms several times in a lifetime and aren't any less ourselves in this process.

I think the truth is that there is no inherent quality to personhood that would make it persist after death. I think our obsession with this topic has to do with the fact that human mental capabilities are very focused on social relationships, and the effects of social relationships do persist for a while after death. Therefore some people choose to believe that their place in society is more real than the physical world around them and from this you get all these ideas about how our minds imprint on the environment and create spirits and whatnot.

It's obviously a very human thing to do though.

LP,
Dusty

The whole atom memory concept sounds as plausible as the water memory concept in homeopathy. Comedic but no less plausible counter-arguments to water memory would claim that the water molecule would have a greater memory of being human or animal waste than of the active component of the medicine. This isn't intended to be ridicule on my part, it just brings the credibility of the argument into perspective.

As far as we can tell atoms are just atoms, inanimate objects following the laws of physics and going from one state to another.

If the the opposing hypothesis could be demonstrated that would be an incredible insight that would radically change our understanding of atoms, it would love to know about it. But right now I am not convinced.

I hope this 'short, to the point' post doesn't come across as confrontational, I just want to present another perspective to the question.