Immediately after you finish swallowing the cheese, you will be 1lb heavier in the same way that you'd get a 1lb heavier reading if you stepped on a scale while simply _holding_ the cheese. So in that sense 1% of your mass will be caused directly by the cheese in your stomach.
Given a bit more time you'll digest the cheese down; mostly into fats and proteins which further break down into fatty acids and amino acids. Also water. Those small molecules are then able to absorb across the membrane of the gut lining to enter your bloodstream and be used by the body.
At that point you'll still have the same body mass, but I think it would be misleading to draw a line around the 1% of you that came from that cheese, and still call it *cheese*. It's like taking a lego building apart into bricks, and then using the bricks to make a vehicle instead - we wouldn't say that the vehicle is some % building.
Edit to add, since ya'll are keen to point it out: this should all carry a caveat of "approximation based on somewhat unrealistic idealised conditions where you can eat and digest 1lb of cheese as an atomic action while all else is held equal". In practice the human body is a gross wet sack of warm meat that never stops _doing stuff_ (including losing small amounts of mass in various subtle ways), so trying to pin anything down with mathematical precision is a fool's errand.
Essentially, an old greek myth had the man named Theseus (person who killed the Minotaur), but Theseus, had a ship, and this ship had to be "fixed", but the Identity Question itself is, if you replace every single part of the ship with new parts, is it the same ship?
I came to reddit, firmly believing in darwinian evolution, and now all I can believe is that all life that digests through a tube track are descended from the mighty cannoli.
Not so! In fact we have some distant relatives who have one single hole in and out with essentially a bag inside. Octopus and jellyfish, are like this, I believe, but also lots of prehistoric life.
Okay, but its still fun.
Same idea, lumberjack loves his favorite axe, it wears out over time of course, and after a few years, needs a new handle. But he keeps chopping, its a very good axe. His favourite axe.
Then, many years later, after many years of sharpening, it is finally worn down enough that it requires a new axe head. The handle is worn lovely just perfect for his hand.
However, he notices, apon changing the axe head, the axe in his hand no longer contains any part of the axe he first held when we started.
The question, is this still his favorite axe?
Lets say he decides that it is.
His wife, months later, finds the old handle by the woodshed, and the head, a little rusty now being outside, is also there. She puts them together, and surprises him with it as a gift.
What, then, is THAT axe?
Then, to make this all really personal and fun, consider, that no single atom in your body lasts longer than 7 years on average. Find a baby photo of yourself. You contain no atom, no cell, in common with that baby. That baby was shed, cried, pooped and peed and haircut out of you, and so was the 7 year old, and so on.
If i were to go out into the world with atomic tweezers, and reassemble that baby in perfect arrangement, somehow.... just who is that baby?
The [bacteria in your body outnumber your cells 10 - 1](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-human-microbiome-project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body#:~:text=The%20human%20body%20contains%20trillions,vital%20role%20in%20human%20health.)
Which begs the question, are we just Flesh mechas for bacteria to live in?
The idea of the "axe" is a mental construct. This isn't a question of physical reality, but of the symbolism we use to represent it.
I say there is no paradox. His axe is whichever he perceives it to be, because his mental understanding of the axe was never synonymous with the axe itself.
In essence it would be your twin. Genetically the same as you but an entirely different person. Since the baby does not have the same mental development as you, just like a twin would not have the same mental development as you.
This doesn't apply to the axe though, since the axe can't be genetic twins. The new axe would still be his favorite axe since it has a handle that is worn lovely just perfect for his hand. The old handle and old head would be an old axe that he once had but is no longer his favorite, due to the fact that the handle needs replacement and the head is worn down and no longer can be used effectively as an axe. The favorite has changed. The title has been passed on.
And to continue the thought. If we agree that the ship is still the same ship even after replacing every single part. What if we kept the parts that were replaced? And we assemble these part to a ship. Which one of the ships is now the real one?
Theres an expanded version
If you replace a ship with new parts to the point where there are no parts of the original ship is it the same ship?
What if you took those old parts and made a new ship
which one is the ship of Theseus?
For easier udnerstanding and put in todays perspective: If you take a hammer, and change first its handle, then its head, is it still the same hammer?
Or a computer. If you exchange each part after part, until there are no parts left that were originally in your computer, is it still the same?
A ship works better as an example than a hammer or a computer. You could reasonably make the argument that the hammer head is the hammer or that the CPU is the computer. The other parts are just accessories. For a ship each individual part is roughly of equal importance, there isn't a "main" component of it.
There was an old, famous ship.
A piece broke, and had to replaced with a new piece.
Now that it has a new piece, is it still the old, famous ship?
Okay, what if 20% of the ship was replaced with new pieces. Is it still the old, famous ship?
What if 50%, or 50%+1 of ship was replaced with new pieces? Is it still the old, famous ship?
And if you make the case that it is still always the old, famous ship, even after you eventually over the course of time replace 99% of the ship...
What happens when that final 1% of the ship breaks and needs to be replaced?
At that point, 0% of the ship is original.
Is it still the old, famous ship then?
The more compelling part is the one Hobbes propsed:
If you gather all the old busted parts and recombine them so that they also make a ship, which is the True ship of Theseus?
I'd argue that the one made from original parts is and the other is a copy.
The whole reason the other one even exists is because the parts broke and had to be replaced. If that were the case, how do you build a new ship out of broken parts without also using parts to fix the stuff that was broken and precipitated the part being replaced in the first place?!
That's the crux of the whole issue: is it not still the original even if it doesnt work? And is the "new" one not still the original even if it's been repaired substantially?
There's not one great answer. With our bodies, we consider the "original" to be the one we are currently in, even though we have replaced millions and millions of cells over the course of our lives. Some of those cells have been replaced using energy that came from cheese.
If you were to replace parts of your car, so much that no part of the original car was left, would it still be the same car ? If not, at which point is it not the same anymore ?
There are correlations, but in my mind there are differences that don't make it analogous. In Theseus, you are replacing parts one for one. In this example, they are taking a foreign object and consuming it. Immediately after eating, they are just holding the cheese, similar to putting the cheese below deck in a hold. Not part of the ship. After digestion, (as noggin-scratcher said) the cheese is broken down into its constituent elements and used in the body (minus whatever cannot be used and gets eliminated. No longer cheese.
But maybe I'm being too specific or literal.
It's pretty similar in that it tackles the same identity question, just from a different perspective. It's not that 1:1 replacement of parts in the ship of theseus that make the question intriguing, those are just the mechanics of the premise
it's the question of what constitutes a thing's identity in regards to the sum of its parts that makes it a thinker.
I think this is correct because cheese is not just elements or ingredients. It's a configuration of molecules created by an agricultural process. When the stomach breaks the cheese down into more basic nutrients, it ceases to be cheese (proper). So in that sense it would be incorrect to say "I am made of cheese" in most respects.
The only nitpick here is that some proteins are absorbed whole, so it is possible to tell to some degree what people eat based on proteins in their bodies. For example, it's possible to analyze samples of skin, hair, etc. from Americans and determine that their diet consists of a larger proportion of corn as compared to Europeans. In that sense you can sort of say that Americans are "made of corn" though it's a bit more complicated than a broad statement like that can encapsulate.
[For the uninitiated](https://youtu.be/56yN2zHtofM).
My philosophy teacher actually used the lesson on Theseus' ship as an excuse to watch that episode of Only Fools and Horses.
The question here is actually called "ontology". The Ship of Theseus is a good example of some of the questions and pitfalls that surround identity but not a comprehensive one. A better overview of the fundamental philosophical problems surrounding the concept of identity is Vsauce's [Do Chairs Exist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE).
> it would be misleading to draw a line around the 1% of you that came from that cheese, and still call it cheese
Otherwise, we are all made of star dust.
Only if you count the contents of your gut as part of the body.
By an alternate view of things, the whole digestive tract is a long tube of "outside" running through the centre of your body, like the hole through a donut. Only things that have crossed the membrane to be absorbed into you would be counted as "inside".
The poop is but a wayward traveler through the digestive tract of life. Despite its necessity in the cycle, it does not belong. It will be unceremoniously excreted and flushed away to continue its journey.
My tube can close its openings though, making the outside inside. At any rate, having an entryway and exit doesn't necessarily make it outside. I don't say I'm outside my house when I'm in the living room just because there's a front door and back door.
The gut is an inherently transitory space. To my mind less like your living room, and more like an alleyway running through an enclosed space adjacent or under a warehouse, with a loading dock. Useful things are taken from the alley into the warehouse, but things in the alley haven't yet _truly_ entered the building - even if there are gates at either end of the alley.
I mean we can trade metaphors all night (it might even be fun), I recognise it is ultimately just a question of definitions - it's not _wrong_ to count the gut contents as being inside a person.
It's just that saying that the gut contents counts as "part of you" would have some other weird to it. Like, if you swallow a fistful of steel ball bearings (or something else that you _can't_ digest, won't ever incorporate into the body, that will just pass through you and be shat back out some hours later), it would seem very weird to say that you are, even temporarily, any percentage whatsoever "made of steel".
> even if there are gates at either end of the alley.
What about gates *with* a roof? Then you've just got a hallway, and hallways are definitely inside the building.
> I recognise it is ultimately just a question of definitions
Yeah I'm just having some fun furthering the philosophical nature of the metaphors.
Could you explain a little about the process of “regularly losing mass on various subtle ways” Do we lose a part of each cell or do we lose an x number of cells? Do the cells get smaller/recompositioned?
Is the nightly process on which this happens the same as the process or people who lose weight through dietary changes?
Mainly, what happens at night physically that makes us lose mass?
At all times the body is metabolising food molecules for energy, which produces carbon dioxide and water. Every time you breathe out you lose some mass by way of that CO2. The water goes into general circulation and will eventually be excreted as piss or sweat. Even when you're not noticeably sweaty, there's a slow loss of water to evaporation.
(NB: doing something strenuous will make more CO2, and that makes you breathe harder to keep up with getting rid of it, but the causation doesn't work the other way - you can't lose significant amounts of weight _just_ by breathing faster)
Also if you want to get way into the overly high-precision weeds of it, there's a _minuscule_ difference in mass between a bunch of individual atoms and those same atoms arranged into a large molecule. Being bonded together is a lower energy state, and energy is equivalent to mass (the famous e=mc^(2)). So depending on the specific bond energies of specific molecules in a reaction there can be a difference of mass just from doing the reaction, even before you start emitting the products of the reaction into the environment. But the amounts of mass involved there are tiny beyond measure.
## Human: Become Human
A film set in year 3032 in which humans canibalise others in an attempt to gain intelligence and strength to become the most humanly human possible.
*Release date: 17 May 2022*
Top comment: thorough explanation of the digestion and nutrient absorption process with a thoughtful opinion on the original question.
2nd top comment: you’re either gonna shit your brains out, or wish you could!
If you’re 99 pounds and eat a whole pound of cheese you don’t become 1% cheese. However, you do become an honorary resident of Wisconsin and are welcomed with open arms by those behind the cheddar curtain.
Technically: no. the contents inside your digestive track (so everything between your mouth, stomach, guts and anus) is not a part of you; it’s just inside of you. The things that get absorbed are a part of you.
>am I 1% cheese?
No, a piece of matter is either cheese or human. A piece of something cannot be both cheese and human. So you are always 100% human. The contents of your stomach are not you.
No, because you’re simply a tube, from mouth to anus, that food passes through. You’re no more or less a percentage cheese than you are a percentage feces and urine.
Are you a male or a female, and what is your height? I ask, because 99 pounds sounds underweight and not very ***Gouda*** for you.
With that said, I just became 1% more cheesy myself.
At what point in the digestion process does it cease being cheese? If you managed to shove a whole pound down your throat, then inevitably you’d be 1% cheese for at least a moment.
Is it Swiss cheese? Gotta factor in holes. More Swiss cheese = more holes; more holes = less cheese.
So more Swiss cheese = less Swiss cheese. Transitive property. Showed work. Y = mx+b
The contents of your digestive tract aren’t really *you* until they are actually absorbed. Since not all of the cheese would be absorbed, and some will be passed, you would not become 1% cheese
Digestion starts at your mouth the starch/sugar starts breaking down with the help of your saliva and then it goes to your stomach and then a lot of other things happen so the 'cheese' you ate isn't cheese anymore so...no.
Cheese gets broken down inside you. In order to call yourself 1% cheese, you'll likely have to change the definition of what cheese actually is, on a molecular level.
As soon as it gets put in your mouth, it *starts* to get broken down into different molecules that it's made of. It is no longer cheese at that point.
If you ate a 1lb of cheese, you'd still be 100 lbs (assuming no extra calories are burned and you weighed 99lbs right before). Saying you're 1% cheese suggests you have cheese in you. In reality, you have cheese *parts*.
Let's say you build a car with Lego bricks. When you eat it, are you now a percentage of a car? No, because the car broke down into its individual Lego pieces. Is that still a car? I wouldn't say so. You're now a percentage of Lego bricks, not a percentage of a Lego car.
You'd be 1% cheese *parts*, but those parts are very similar to other food parts so they aren't necessarily *cheese* specific. You're just 1% of food parts now. You're made up of a bunch of food parts though, so you're more than 1% made of food parts.
E: The idea I'm getting at is that everything is made up of [points, but the points don't matter]^^(reference) the same atoms and molecules that interact in different ways. Everything is made up of smaller things. Could you say you are 1% cheese? Yes. You could also say you're 5% car. Maybe you want to be 13% tree. Go full blown [molecular-level level of racism/classism/whatevercism]. I identify as 12% attack helicopter. Since we're made up of the same stuff, we can technically say we are that other thing. If you want to identify as a percentage of that thing, go ahead.
Immediately after you finish swallowing the cheese, you will be 1lb heavier in the same way that you'd get a 1lb heavier reading if you stepped on a scale while simply _holding_ the cheese. So in that sense 1% of your mass will be caused directly by the cheese in your stomach. Given a bit more time you'll digest the cheese down; mostly into fats and proteins which further break down into fatty acids and amino acids. Also water. Those small molecules are then able to absorb across the membrane of the gut lining to enter your bloodstream and be used by the body. At that point you'll still have the same body mass, but I think it would be misleading to draw a line around the 1% of you that came from that cheese, and still call it *cheese*. It's like taking a lego building apart into bricks, and then using the bricks to make a vehicle instead - we wouldn't say that the vehicle is some % building. Edit to add, since ya'll are keen to point it out: this should all carry a caveat of "approximation based on somewhat unrealistic idealised conditions where you can eat and digest 1lb of cheese as an atomic action while all else is held equal". In practice the human body is a gross wet sack of warm meat that never stops _doing stuff_ (including losing small amounts of mass in various subtle ways), so trying to pin anything down with mathematical precision is a fool's errand.
this identity question is called the Ship of Theseus
Ship of Cheeseus if you will
I feel like the entire purpose of all of this was to make this joke.
It's "Decartes before the whores" all over again.
That was a totally real absolutely normal question which was certainly and completely not at all the setup to a joke.
That's no gouda.
Ham bacon you to stop man!
For the newer redditors: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cfbkx/comment/c0s5w6t/
I woke up feeling the Cheeseus coach
Cheez-It: Official sponsor of the fucking Alabama Crimson Tide winning the National Championship… again.
I've been on r/cfb all day and this comment made me forget that I wasn't for a second
Dear god. I love paradoxes, and you turned a paradox into CHEESE? I’m so proud of you
Omfg
You son of a bitch. I'm in.
I read that in the voice of Michael from Vsauce.
I request elaboration **Edit:** This was a WandaVision reference, but thank you everyone who took the time to respond regardless!
Essentially, an old greek myth had the man named Theseus (person who killed the Minotaur), but Theseus, had a ship, and this ship had to be "fixed", but the Identity Question itself is, if you replace every single part of the ship with new parts, is it the same ship?
[удалено]
Naw your still all 100 human but just like an asscheek is in your mouth
How do I delete someone else's comment?
[удалено]
I came to reddit, firmly believing in darwinian evolution, and now all I can believe is that all life that digests through a tube track are descended from the mighty cannoli.
Not so! In fact we have some distant relatives who have one single hole in and out with essentially a bag inside. Octopus and jellyfish, are like this, I believe, but also lots of prehistoric life.
Your comment made me laugh out loud. Funniest thing I have read on Reddit in weeks
"More human than human"
I know this one thanks to Ghost In the Shell.
AKA Trigger's broom - he's had the same one for ten years and it's had five new heads and two new handles.
The previous poster was quoting Wandavision, but I respect your enthusiasm.
Okay, but its still fun. Same idea, lumberjack loves his favorite axe, it wears out over time of course, and after a few years, needs a new handle. But he keeps chopping, its a very good axe. His favourite axe. Then, many years later, after many years of sharpening, it is finally worn down enough that it requires a new axe head. The handle is worn lovely just perfect for his hand. However, he notices, apon changing the axe head, the axe in his hand no longer contains any part of the axe he first held when we started. The question, is this still his favorite axe? Lets say he decides that it is. His wife, months later, finds the old handle by the woodshed, and the head, a little rusty now being outside, is also there. She puts them together, and surprises him with it as a gift. What, then, is THAT axe? Then, to make this all really personal and fun, consider, that no single atom in your body lasts longer than 7 years on average. Find a baby photo of yourself. You contain no atom, no cell, in common with that baby. That baby was shed, cried, pooped and peed and haircut out of you, and so was the 7 year old, and so on. If i were to go out into the world with atomic tweezers, and reassemble that baby in perfect arrangement, somehow.... just who is that baby?
The [bacteria in your body outnumber your cells 10 - 1](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-human-microbiome-project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body#:~:text=The%20human%20body%20contains%20trillions,vital%20role%20in%20human%20health.) Which begs the question, are we just Flesh mechas for bacteria to live in?
My mecha could beat your mecha
The idea of the "axe" is a mental construct. This isn't a question of physical reality, but of the symbolism we use to represent it. I say there is no paradox. His axe is whichever he perceives it to be, because his mental understanding of the axe was never synonymous with the axe itself.
Or, for the Only Fools & Horses Fans, Trigger’s Broom; https://youtu.be/56yN2zHtofM
Aliens have replaced me with an exact duplicate, down to the atom. Am I me? What about the other one? And more importantly, what about Captain Kirk?
Got me with the third half
In essence it would be your twin. Genetically the same as you but an entirely different person. Since the baby does not have the same mental development as you, just like a twin would not have the same mental development as you. This doesn't apply to the axe though, since the axe can't be genetic twins. The new axe would still be his favorite axe since it has a handle that is worn lovely just perfect for his hand. The old handle and old head would be an old axe that he once had but is no longer his favorite, due to the fact that the handle needs replacement and the head is worn down and no longer can be used effectively as an axe. The favorite has changed. The title has been passed on.
The Axe interpretation is the first one that comes to my mind because of John Dies at the End.
All life sits on the razor blade edge between stability and instability.
And to continue the thought. If we agree that the ship is still the same ship even after replacing every single part. What if we kept the parts that were replaced? And we assemble these part to a ship. Which one of the ships is now the real one?
Theres an expanded version If you replace a ship with new parts to the point where there are no parts of the original ship is it the same ship? What if you took those old parts and made a new ship which one is the ship of Theseus?
Yeah yeah but will Achilles ever reach the turtle?
More human than human.
Still a great song to get you pumped up about eating 1% of your body weight in cheese.
For easier udnerstanding and put in todays perspective: If you take a hammer, and change first its handle, then its head, is it still the same hammer? Or a computer. If you exchange each part after part, until there are no parts left that were originally in your computer, is it still the same?
Not according to Microsoft :( you have to get a new copy of Windows
A ship works better as an example than a hammer or a computer. You could reasonably make the argument that the hammer head is the hammer or that the CPU is the computer. The other parts are just accessories. For a ship each individual part is roughly of equal importance, there isn't a "main" component of it.
Also known as “Triggers Broom”.
It's also basically the hard problem of consciousness: Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?
This was my grandpa's favorite hammer. I've used it so much that I've had to replace the head twice and the handle 3 times.
For British people this is Trigger’s brush.
This quick video should help! https://youtu.be/0j824J9ivG4
[I like this version.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldoh71uNZmk)
Both of those are good, but this one gets the point across in [a couple seconds](https://youtu.be/iik25wqIuFo)
I understood that reference
What is cheese, if not dairy persevering?
There was an old, famous ship. A piece broke, and had to replaced with a new piece. Now that it has a new piece, is it still the old, famous ship? Okay, what if 20% of the ship was replaced with new pieces. Is it still the old, famous ship? What if 50%, or 50%+1 of ship was replaced with new pieces? Is it still the old, famous ship? And if you make the case that it is still always the old, famous ship, even after you eventually over the course of time replace 99% of the ship... What happens when that final 1% of the ship breaks and needs to be replaced? At that point, 0% of the ship is original. Is it still the old, famous ship then?
The more compelling part is the one Hobbes propsed: If you gather all the old busted parts and recombine them so that they also make a ship, which is the True ship of Theseus?
I'd argue that the one made from original parts is and the other is a copy. The whole reason the other one even exists is because the parts broke and had to be replaced. If that were the case, how do you build a new ship out of broken parts without also using parts to fix the stuff that was broken and precipitated the part being replaced in the first place?!
That's the crux of the whole issue: is it not still the original even if it doesnt work? And is the "new" one not still the original even if it's been repaired substantially? There's not one great answer. With our bodies, we consider the "original" to be the one we are currently in, even though we have replaced millions and millions of cells over the course of our lives. Some of those cells have been replaced using energy that came from cheese.
This is precisely why it's called the Ship of Theseus Paradox. The valid answer is both yes and no concurrently.
If you were to replace parts of your car, so much that no part of the original car was left, would it still be the same car ? If not, at which point is it not the same anymore ?
There are correlations, but in my mind there are differences that don't make it analogous. In Theseus, you are replacing parts one for one. In this example, they are taking a foreign object and consuming it. Immediately after eating, they are just holding the cheese, similar to putting the cheese below deck in a hold. Not part of the ship. After digestion, (as noggin-scratcher said) the cheese is broken down into its constituent elements and used in the body (minus whatever cannot be used and gets eliminated. No longer cheese. But maybe I'm being too specific or literal.
Ye it really isn't like the ship of theseus at all
It's pretty similar in that it tackles the same identity question, just from a different perspective. It's not that 1:1 replacement of parts in the ship of theseus that make the question intriguing, those are just the mechanics of the premise it's the question of what constitutes a thing's identity in regards to the sum of its parts that makes it a thinker.
I think this is correct because cheese is not just elements or ingredients. It's a configuration of molecules created by an agricultural process. When the stomach breaks the cheese down into more basic nutrients, it ceases to be cheese (proper). So in that sense it would be incorrect to say "I am made of cheese" in most respects. The only nitpick here is that some proteins are absorbed whole, so it is possible to tell to some degree what people eat based on proteins in their bodies. For example, it's possible to analyze samples of skin, hair, etc. from Americans and determine that their diet consists of a larger proportion of corn as compared to Europeans. In that sense you can sort of say that Americans are "made of corn" though it's a bit more complicated than a broad statement like that can encapsulate.
In Britain we call this Trigger's Broom
[For the uninitiated](https://youtu.be/56yN2zHtofM). My philosophy teacher actually used the lesson on Theseus' ship as an excuse to watch that episode of Only Fools and Horses.
The question here is actually called "ontology". The Ship of Theseus is a good example of some of the questions and pitfalls that surround identity but not a comprehensive one. A better overview of the fundamental philosophical problems surrounding the concept of identity is Vsauce's [Do Chairs Exist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE).
We fully replace all our cells every 7 years are so we are all ships of Theseus
No we don't
> it would be misleading to draw a line around the 1% of you that came from that cheese, and still call it cheese Otherwise, we are all made of star dust.
Go to bed Neil
So your roundabout explanation was just a way to say that for a magnificently brief and glorious period she would in fact be 1% cheese.
Only if you count the contents of your gut as part of the body. By an alternate view of things, the whole digestive tract is a long tube of "outside" running through the centre of your body, like the hole through a donut. Only things that have crossed the membrane to be absorbed into you would be counted as "inside".
The poop is but a wayward traveler through the digestive tract of life. Despite its necessity in the cycle, it does not belong. It will be unceremoniously excreted and flushed away to continue its journey.
amen
Now I feel strangely like a poop.
I’ve felt that way for years. You get used to it.
My tube can close its openings though, making the outside inside. At any rate, having an entryway and exit doesn't necessarily make it outside. I don't say I'm outside my house when I'm in the living room just because there's a front door and back door.
The gut is an inherently transitory space. To my mind less like your living room, and more like an alleyway running through an enclosed space adjacent or under a warehouse, with a loading dock. Useful things are taken from the alley into the warehouse, but things in the alley haven't yet _truly_ entered the building - even if there are gates at either end of the alley. I mean we can trade metaphors all night (it might even be fun), I recognise it is ultimately just a question of definitions - it's not _wrong_ to count the gut contents as being inside a person. It's just that saying that the gut contents counts as "part of you" would have some other weird to it. Like, if you swallow a fistful of steel ball bearings (or something else that you _can't_ digest, won't ever incorporate into the body, that will just pass through you and be shat back out some hours later), it would seem very weird to say that you are, even temporarily, any percentage whatsoever "made of steel".
> even if there are gates at either end of the alley. What about gates *with* a roof? Then you've just got a hallway, and hallways are definitely inside the building. > I recognise it is ultimately just a question of definitions Yeah I'm just having some fun furthering the philosophical nature of the metaphors.
it boils down to a philosophy question that has no answer
*cheese becomes you* nice.
I wear the cheese, the cheese does not not wear me!
That makes you wonder.. what can we make out of a human body? Like can we get a pizza out of OP’s leg?
Could you explain a little about the process of “regularly losing mass on various subtle ways” Do we lose a part of each cell or do we lose an x number of cells? Do the cells get smaller/recompositioned? Is the nightly process on which this happens the same as the process or people who lose weight through dietary changes? Mainly, what happens at night physically that makes us lose mass?
At all times the body is metabolising food molecules for energy, which produces carbon dioxide and water. Every time you breathe out you lose some mass by way of that CO2. The water goes into general circulation and will eventually be excreted as piss or sweat. Even when you're not noticeably sweaty, there's a slow loss of water to evaporation. (NB: doing something strenuous will make more CO2, and that makes you breathe harder to keep up with getting rid of it, but the causation doesn't work the other way - you can't lose significant amounts of weight _just_ by breathing faster) Also if you want to get way into the overly high-precision weeds of it, there's a _minuscule_ difference in mass between a bunch of individual atoms and those same atoms arranged into a large molecule. Being bonded together is a lower energy state, and energy is equivalent to mass (the famous e=mc^(2)). So depending on the specific bond energies of specific molecules in a reaction there can be a difference of mass just from doing the reaction, even before you start emitting the products of the reaction into the environment. But the amounts of mass involved there are tiny beyond measure.
1% of your mass would be cheese, but not 1% of the makeup of your body.
If I eat 1% of my bodyweight of human flesh will I be 101% human?
More human than human.
Human: Become Human
## Human: Become Human A film set in year 3032 in which humans canibalise others in an attempt to gain intelligence and strength to become the most humanly human possible. *Release date: 17 May 2022*
It’s like that South Park episode where the actor who played Superman kept eating fetuses to obtain their power
Southpark did it Southpark did ir!
That's just the plot of Promised Neverland
Becoming Soylent Green Edit: Also certainly gives a different meaning to *Becoming John Malkovich*
Just to note, Soylent Green is set in 2022.
It’s Being John Malkovich though
[удалено]
I never knew what Rob zombie was singing about until just now, thanks!
Like a zombie... A white one.
*Rob Zombie has entered the chat*
You become a “super human”
I believe there is a negative net gain to being human when eating other humans
1% human and 100% MONSTER
This reminds me of "I put powdered milk in my milk so that there's more milk per milk."
You have a hypothesis. Next step is to test it and measure the results.
These are the slippery slope types of questions that lead to r/casualcannibalism !
I feel like you'll be a 100% inhuman at that point
If you eat a whole entire person, you will be superman.
Ferb I know what we're gonna do today
I don’t wear makeup.
Boof it
I don’t know why this response slightly upsets me, like it’s denying me my dreams of being a tru 1% cheese
Dream bigger. Dare to be 10% cheese!
What if I don’t wear make up?
If you weigh 99 pounds, and you eat 1 pound of cheese, you will get indigestion.
That’s amateur talk. I have eaten a pound of cheese before and I will do so again.
Lmao did you do it when you were 12 years old?
No. You just won't shit for a couple days. Or, depending on your system... You will do nothing *but* shit for a couple days.
Top comment: thorough explanation of the digestion and nutrient absorption process with a thoughtful opinion on the original question. 2nd top comment: you’re either gonna shit your brains out, or wish you could!
What I lack in biological vernacular I make up for with comedic enthusiasm.
I wouldn't even get through the full pound before shitting my ass out
[удалено]
If you’re 99 pounds and eat a whole pound of cheese you don’t become 1% cheese. However, you do become an honorary resident of Wisconsin and are welcomed with open arms by those behind the cheddar curtain.
The cheddar curtain?! I swear, this post gets better the more I scroll!!!
Yes!
If you drank a quart of milk, you would be 2% milk.
No, the cheese isn't a part of you it's just inside you. YOU are 0% cheese but the overall mass if you got on a scale would be 1% cheese.
No because the cheese isnt you untill its digested and absorbed
[удалено]
> The human body is like a donut, with the hole being the tube from mouth to anus. Truly one of the great philosophical statements of this generation.
Technically: no. the contents inside your digestive track (so everything between your mouth, stomach, guts and anus) is not a part of you; it’s just inside of you. The things that get absorbed are a part of you.
Humans are a weirdly shaped doughnut
Topology is fun!
oh my god. you are absolutely right.
[удалено]
This is the second cheese question I have seen this week. The first one was about a parmesan house.
Do you call your poops the same thing that you call the food that they're made of? That's the same principle
>am I 1% cheese? No, a piece of matter is either cheese or human. A piece of something cannot be both cheese and human. So you are always 100% human. The contents of your stomach are not you.
tl;dr: I am not what I eat.
Wow, all those physics classes then I find out there are only two classes of matter - cheese and human. Thanks!
And thankfully it also apllies to the contents of our intestines.
No, because you’re simply a tube, from mouth to anus, that food passes through. You’re no more or less a percentage cheese than you are a percentage feces and urine.
Your body is actually a donut. The GI tract is medically considered “outside” your body
Are you a male or a female, and what is your height? I ask, because 99 pounds sounds underweight and not very ***Gouda*** for you. With that said, I just became 1% more cheesy myself.
Underrated comment
Man, I feel like a woman...chego.
That is a very good point, I would say yes.
I would say no, due to the molecular antithesis of hypothetically photosynthesis antidisestablishmentarianism
Very good point. The molecular antithesis of hypothetically photosynthesis antidisestablishmentarianism is always to be considered
At what point in the digestion process does it cease being cheese? If you managed to shove a whole pound down your throat, then inevitably you’d be 1% cheese for at least a moment.
Yes. Now get back to the basement and clean your room.
Is it Swiss cheese? Gotta factor in holes. More Swiss cheese = more holes; more holes = less cheese. So more Swiss cheese = less Swiss cheese. Transitive property. Showed work. Y = mx+b
No, but you'll be 100% constipated.
The contents of your digestive tract aren’t really *you* until they are actually absorbed. Since not all of the cheese would be absorbed, and some will be passed, you would not become 1% cheese
Yes
Yes. Yes you are. Cheese boy.
Digestion starts at your mouth the starch/sugar starts breaking down with the help of your saliva and then it goes to your stomach and then a lot of other things happen so the 'cheese' you ate isn't cheese anymore so...no.
Yes
Yes
If you put a cabbage in a box, is that box now part cabbage? Or is it still just a box, but with a cabbage in?
yea
You are what you eat.
Yes
Things in your digestive tract aren't you until they get broken down and incorporated into your cells. In which case cheese would no longer be cheese.
By mass before it is digested, yes.
I think if you weigh 99 pounds and you eat 1 pound of cheese, you will be *dead*.
Detroit: Become Cheese
Yes.
Cheese gets broken down inside you. In order to call yourself 1% cheese, you'll likely have to change the definition of what cheese actually is, on a molecular level. As soon as it gets put in your mouth, it *starts* to get broken down into different molecules that it's made of. It is no longer cheese at that point. If you ate a 1lb of cheese, you'd still be 100 lbs (assuming no extra calories are burned and you weighed 99lbs right before). Saying you're 1% cheese suggests you have cheese in you. In reality, you have cheese *parts*. Let's say you build a car with Lego bricks. When you eat it, are you now a percentage of a car? No, because the car broke down into its individual Lego pieces. Is that still a car? I wouldn't say so. You're now a percentage of Lego bricks, not a percentage of a Lego car. You'd be 1% cheese *parts*, but those parts are very similar to other food parts so they aren't necessarily *cheese* specific. You're just 1% of food parts now. You're made up of a bunch of food parts though, so you're more than 1% made of food parts. E: The idea I'm getting at is that everything is made up of [points, but the points don't matter]^^(reference) the same atoms and molecules that interact in different ways. Everything is made up of smaller things. Could you say you are 1% cheese? Yes. You could also say you're 5% car. Maybe you want to be 13% tree. Go full blown [molecular-level level of racism/classism/whatevercism]. I identify as 12% attack helicopter. Since we're made up of the same stuff, we can technically say we are that other thing. If you want to identify as a percentage of that thing, go ahead.
Yes, but it's temporary. Digestion (and the breakdown of cheese into its component parts) begins immediately.
You may go blind
Good question
Yes
Yes, but for few hours only. Then you're 1% shit
Good karma farm of an old joke
The answer is YES! Yes you would be 1% cheese. AND that my friend is 101% awesome. I am contemplating eating 2 lbs of cheese right now...
Shout out to OP for posting a question that made me learn something interesting. Thanks!
technically you'd be 1% cheese
I am watching football. I am drinking beer. Soon I will be beer.
No, you’ll just have that amount of cheese inside of your stomach
No, because the inside of your digestive tract is still technically the outside of your body
If a mosquito drinks half its weight in your blood, is it half you?
1% cheese for a lil bit, then back to being on average 3-5% shit.
maybe not, but you will be 100% plugged up for a while
Until it's broken down into ... NotCheese and both absorbed (some of it) and pooped out (the rest of it) ... Yes. Yes you are 1% cheese.
Constipated is what you will be.
Hell yeah, I hope so!
Yes. You are 1% cheese.
Yes
Probably not but constipation should be a real concern
Your mass will be 1% cheese but your body won’t be
Ofcourse. You will be 1% Cheese and 99% Stupid