In terms, animate thing (TR:10) (LH:20) (TL:30), from Greek anima-, meaning: "wind", + -ate, meaning: "one acted upon", + "thing", meaning: "[add]", as compared to an inanimate thing, is an entity, atomic geometry, or structure that has the property of one or more of a number of movements, such as: bending, spinning, crawling, turning, walking, swimming, jumping, flying, etc.; historically, a moving thing that has the property of breath or movement via wind power.
- See main: CH-based
Among animate things of a decisively "intelligent" nature, e.g. robots, humans, or monkeys, etc., it is found that the nature of this intelligence derives from the geometric arraignment of the protons, neutrons, and electrons of the elements of "column 14" of the periodic table (see: hmolscience periodic table), as shown below, specifically the elements carbon C (Z=6), for humans and monkeys, and silicon Si (Z=14), for robots or computers, or germanium Ge (Z=32), for various early semiconductors and or future computers, in particular:
which have the property of light-induced electron-rearrangement or flexibility, i.e. "animation", not by individually, but when attached to other elements, and when their valence shells are engaged into photon-electron interactions or exchange.
CH-based | Animations
The following are four examples of related intelligent CH-based animate things, namely: retinal, DTA, AQ, and human, the first three with the ability to bend, walk, and carry, respectively, and the human, with the ability to bend, walk, carry, as well as to plan and think about other types of movements, when engaged into such photon-electron interactions or exchanges:
Here, to pause, we see that a human (a powered CHNOPS+20 thing), as a walking, talking, bending, thinking, dancing animated atomic geometry, is but a more developed atomic form than things such as AQ (C14H8O2), a carrying carbon-based thing, DTA (C14H10S2), a walking carbon-based thing, or retinal (C20H28O), a bending carbon-based thing, by virtue of the fact that as more atoms, e.g. sulfur S (DTA) or oxygen O (retinal), are added to the carbon-based animate thing, over the course of evolution (see: molecular evolution table; evolution timeline; great chain of being), from hydrogen to human, more advanced movement properties are acquired.
Related to the subject of "animate things", particularly the question of the cause of the animation or the moving principle of the thing; people, colloquially, are deeply ingrained with the notion that the soul is what moves humans or the power or moving principle of people:
- “Whatever the power be that creates such an animal out of an egg, that it is either the soul, or part of the soul, or something having a soul, or something existing previous to, and more excellent than the soul, operating with intelligence and foresight.”
- — William Harvey (c.1630), “On the Source of the Chick Embryo”
- “Thus, in consequence of man’s reasoning upon false principles, the soul, OR moving principle within him, as well as the concealed moving principle of nature, have been made mere chimeras, mere beings of imagination.”
- — Baron d’Holbach (1770), The System of Nature (§7, pg. 51) 
Here, firstly, in respect to soul beliefs (compare: asoulism), according to the polls of Julien Musolino (2013), some 84% of American college students, specifically psychology students, believe they have a soul, and that 73% believe that god gave it to them. Secondly, just as Rene Descartes, in the 1610s, was impressed with the Francini brothers’ hydraulic automatons, e.g. animated Neptune, Diana, Orpheus, and a sword-wielding Perseus that swooped down and slayed a dragon rising out of the water, all hydraulically-powered (Ѻ) by the flow of water from the river (Ѻ) Seine, so much so that reasoned, dualistically, that he was an automaton with a soul in the pineal gland; here to, impressed by the above types of small 3-element animated molecules, do we reason, monistically, that the human does not have a soul, and that human motion is but a more elaborate variety of powered-motion as compared to AQ, DTA, or retinal.
A key semantic point to note here, when attempting to distinguish between, e.g. a human and a windmill, in respect to anthropomorphized terms such as “life” (see: life does not exist; abioism), is that while both are “powered” animate forms, and that while both may be carbon-based, e.g. if the windmill is wooden (hydrocarbon-based), the distinguishing feature, separating the two, is that a human is a powered CHNOPS+20 element based animate form (Swan, 1974).
In science, the study of things, both animate and inanimate, from the thermodynamic perspective, opens a number of important clarification issues; as exemplified by the following three views:
- “Animate matter [is] termed ‘life’ for short.”
- — Alfred Ubbelohde (1954), Time and Thermodynamics 
Here, we note that animate things, such as automatons, robots, DTA, and AQ, as shown animated below, are definitively NOT alive, but fall within Ubbelohde's definition; hence the need for the abioism viewpoint.
- “Discuss the political systems dictatorship and democracy from the point of view of the proposed rules of human behavior. Which system of government is most in tune with animate thermodynamics? How might the level of education in a society influence the choice of system of government?”
- — Sture Nordholm (1997), “In Defense of Thermodynamics: an Animate Analogy” 
Here, we note that a windmill is an animate thing, but not necessarily a thing involved with politics, which points to the need to distinguish that Nordholm is referring to "CHNOPS+20 thing animate thermodynamics", as opposed to chnopsological thermodynamics, aka "biological thermodynamics" (in defunct layspeak), or CH-based animate thermodynamics, e.g. the thermodynamics of animate molecules such as DTA or AQ.
- “The universality of the relationships of thermodynamics eliminates an “artificial” distinction between the animate and the inanimate, and thereby enables one to see the world as a single thing.”
- — Donald Haynie (2001), Biological Thermodynamics 
This last quote, is about correct (aside from the fact that Haynie misses the abioism solution to the problem that thermodynamics does not recognized life, as Alfred Lotka (1925) and Charles Sherrington (1938) have pointed out), i.e. it points to the monistic nature of thermodynamics.
- Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 2000.
- Soul terminology upgrades – Hmolpedia 2020.
- (a) Musolino, Julien. (2015). The Soul Fallacy: What Science Shows We Gain from Letting Go of Our Soul Beliefs (foreword: Victor Stenger) (soul questionnaire, pgs. 52-54, 57). Prometheus. (b) Thims, Libb. (2018). “LOL: 84% of US College Students Believe They Have a Soul and 73% Believe That God Gave it to Them” , Atheism Reviews, Mar 7.
- (a) Ubbelohde, Alfred René. (1947). Time and Thermodynamics (ch. IX: “Thermodynamics and Life”). Oxford University Press. (b) Ubbelohde, Alfred René. (1954). Man and Energy ... Illustrated (Section: XIII: Thermodynamics and Life, pg. 183-200, Section: XIV: Thermodynamic Laws and Cognition, pg. 201-09). London: Hutchinson's Scientific & Technical Publications.
- Nordholm, Sture. (1997). “In Defense of Thermodynamics: an Animate Analogy” (abs), Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3): 273.
- (a) Haynie, Donald. (2001). Biological Thermodynamics (animate, pgs. 297, 316). Cambridge University Press. (b) Haynie, Donald. (2008). Biological Thermodynamics (pg. 330). Cambridge University Press.
- Animate thing – Hmolpedia 2020.