What part of the second statement is wrong? A turtle cannot survive without its shell, just like you could not survive without your skull. It is an intrinsic part of what allows it to function as a living organism, therefore the line between “turtle” and “shell” is a bit blurred
I mean yes, no one, human or turtle, can survive without the ecosystem of the earth, so you could really argue that the planet is the true organism and we are simply byproducts of its existence
Where can you really draw the line? Could you survive in space without any air or equipment? Even if you could, where did the equipment and air come from?
Photosynthetic organisms are for all practical purposes part of your lungs
Me needing something doesn’t make that thing me, right? I need the sun to survive but neither the sun is part of me / I am part of the sun. Like, are you your skeleton? What about the other parts that are not bones then?
I think the right analogy would be to say “you are not inside your skull, you are your skull”. And I would count this as a more or less correct statement.
So my head is not “inside” my skull but *is* my skull? Is the brain not a part of my head?
What part of you makes you? Is it just your brain?
Anyway, I think what they’re getting at is that the shell is actually their spine, not like some extra thing that grows on top of their spine.
Most ppl think they have a skeleton inside them. But If you think of you as your brain (as many would day). Then your actually inside your skeleton.
Behold, a human being.
Well, ehhhh, that’s true for some I suppose.
I get what they try to say. But it’s just funny that they correct a statement with another wrong statement.
What part of the second statement is wrong? A turtle cannot survive without its shell, just like you could not survive without your skull. It is an intrinsic part of what allows it to function as a living organism, therefore the line between “turtle” and “shell” is a bit blurred
You cannot survive without air but you’re not air
I mean yes, no one, human or turtle, can survive without the ecosystem of the earth, so you could really argue that the planet is the true organism and we are simply byproducts of its existence
Yet you won’t argue that you are the earth. Why would you argue that a turtle is the same as a turtle’s shell then?
Where can you really draw the line? Could you survive in space without any air or equipment? Even if you could, where did the equipment and air come from?
Photosynthetic organisms are for all practical purposes part of your lungs
Me needing something doesn’t make that thing me, right? I need the sun to survive but neither the sun is part of me / I am part of the sun. Like, are you your skeleton? What about the other parts that are not bones then?
You can bring extra air and survive just fine.
You can’t bring an extra skull.
Likewise, a hermit crab can bring an extra shell, but a turtle cannot bring an extra shell.
There are animals that inhabit shells, like a Hermit crab. This is different.
Can you put any external part of yourself inside your skull? That’s the difference.
*shows toungue and puts it back in
Ooo, good point. But is it moving an internal part outside the skull? What’s the default location of a tongue?? I’m lost in the science!
According to scientists, the default is outside
source
Yeah, any time you put something in your mouth. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Look, I’m not a biologist, okay!
I’ve been trying but I’m still not flexible enough to reach.
I can, though probably only once
I think the right analogy would be to say “you are not inside your skull, you are your skull”. And I would count this as a more or less correct statement.
Am I my skull? So I get to live as long as my skull is not decayed?
Well, that’s the paradox isn’t it? We are our minds but somehow we also are our bodies.