Is ‘water’ a quality of water?

[Amorphos]

Is ‘water’ a quality of water?

I was watching a french film in which some poetry was briefly discussed; they asked if emotion is not unlike ‘that gravity is a part of water’? ergo it is impossible to get beyond what is a fundament of our being [gravity/emotion].

Only problem is that gravity is not a property of water, and indeed water is also not a property of water. The natural state of water is ice crystal, and waves, ripples etc are the movement of energy through water, that is.

The qualia/quality of water on the other hand, is in water as is gravity even though they are not properties of it. when water is warm it is water, and in any volume it does have gravity and the quality of water.

?

[The Eternal Warrior]

Is ‘water’ a quality of water?

I was watching a french film in which some poetry was briefly discussed; they asked if emotion is not unlike ‘that gravity is a part of water’? ergo it is impossible to get beyond what is a fundament of our being [gravity/emotion].

Only problem is that gravity is not a property of water, and indeed water is also not a property of water. The natural state of water is ice crystal, and waves, ripples etc are the movement of energy through water, that is.

The qualia/quality of water on the other hand, is in water as is gravity even though they are not properties of it. when water is warm it is water, and in any volume it does have gravity and the quality of water.

?

Did you know that a lot of things hate reasoning like yours? I was just wondering if you knew, not really getting on you for it.

[MagsJ]

I would say that the quality of water is liquidity, fluidity, flowingness, or also a puddle or a collection of a body of water... a quality is a thing that something possesses.. so the question is.. can water possess water? that is akin to saying we possess ourselves.

[The Eternal Warrior]

I would say that the quality of water is liquidity, fluidity, flowingness, or also a puddle or a collection of a body of water... a quality is a thing that something possesses.. so the question is.. can water possess water? that is akin to saying we possess ourselves.

Wouldnt water have to be able to die to be able to possess itself?

[Amorphos]

I would say that the quality of water is liquidity, fluidity, flowingness, or also a puddle or a collection of a body of water... a quality is a thing that something possesses.. so the question is.. can water possess water? that is akin to saying we possess ourselves.

The quality of water has or can have many properties, from crystal through to steam, but only when it is water [warm/middle state], do we call it water.
If you are ‘water’ then that is perhaps your only true possession?

All we are saying is that water = water is true, what is water? No other collection of things is water, and it is not a physical quality, but the quality water does exist [as with the color red/qualia]. we cannot say ‘there is no redness’, and so we cannot say there is no ‘you-ness’ nor that the emotional aspect is not fundamental to that. We could say that water must be warm, as should ones emotional state such to be content.

[Stephen C Pedersen]

I like the fish metaphor. Fishes don't know what water is like. How would they ever know that it is wet if they've lived their whole lives in it? I would say that the most distinct quale of water is wetness. What do you guys think?

[Amorphos]

I like the fish metaphor. Fishes don't know what water is like. How would they ever know that it is wet if they've lived their whole lives in it? I would say that the most distinct quale of water is wetness. What do you guys think?

to fish being wet is perhaps akin to us being dry, we still know what dry is. but I take your point, perhaps being weightless is most noticed by the fish. - but I don't see water as weightless lol.

we can still say wetness is a quality of water even if fish cannot deduce that no? I mean, just because you don't know something about it, doesn't mean that the water is not the same.

[fuse]

Is ‘water’ a quality of water?

This is like asking if the whole is also a piece of itself. An aspect of itself.

'Water' is just the abstraction of a phenomenon. The phenomenon is the thing, 'water' is how we refer to it.
If by 'water' someone really means 'liquidity' or 'fluidity' - then it is just a case of equivocation - but the answer would be yes, perhaps.
You wouldn't say fluidity is the essence of water, the chemical compound (H2O), but fluidity is a quality of water of a particular form, namely, liquid water.

Gravity may not be a property of water, but it is certainly a pervasive force that acts on water, as love acts on the soul.

Love is the gravity of the soul.

[Amorphos]

'Water' is just the abstraction of a phenomenon. The phenomenon is the thing, 'water' is how we refer to it.

When your mind sees red where there is green - in an optical illusion, the quality ‘red’ is in and of the mind [the observer]. if then, qualities are things [especially if red is not a property of transparent photons et al], then the quality ‘water’ is as much a thing as a colour, sound, touch or smell, an emotion even.

You wouldn't say fluidity is the essence of water, the chemical compound (H2O), but fluidity is a quality of water of a particular form, namely, liquid water.

Ok, yet the silver sheen upon the surface [tension] of the water, is transparent photons alternating in a wave such to denote a colour, and colours which change with any given perspective taken. Where does the quality of the colours derive from…? They are not the properties of water or of light, but the product of those things informationally interacting. What I mean is that somewhere along the way there has been additional content, that of colour.
So is ‘what is real’ not just both the information types [water/light], but the quality also. There has to be a party other than the physical ones, such to be able to transfer the colour state of one thing to another even a mind. So when you see red then, a, or Mary will see red.

Reality is something that happens when you put that all together. It is not a fixed state but a transient one, morphing from one form to another effortlessly. Such is the shape of the stone, infinite but also something that can become manifest in whatever manner information tells it to.

- in short, 'water' is the quality that all the other properties which compose it, are there to substantiate, and to be. ergo water is the reality as much as anything composing it is its own reality. there's no difference.
_

[fuse]

Sure, you could describe something as having a water-like quality. But what does it mean to say that water has a water-like quality?

I'm not making claims about what is real or the nature of reality. I'm thinking about what it might mean, a thing having the quality of itself. Orange has the quality of being orange -- is either saying nothing at all or equivocating about the word orange.

[MagsJ]

Sure, you could describe something as having a water-like quality. But what does it mean to say that water has a water-like quality?

So is defining an object by what that object is an oxymoron?

A floor has floor-like qualities, but we couldn't define it as such if floors did not exist, so once a thing exists it seems that it becomes self-defining by its very existence.

[James S Saint]

Sure, you could describe something as having a water-like quality. But what does it mean to say that water has a water-like quality?

So is defining an object by what that object is an oxymoron?

A floor has floor-like qualities, but we couldn't define it as such if floors did not exist, so once a thing exists it seems that it becomes self-defining by its very existence.

Tautological definitions are a sign of a lack of understanding of the words.


.. and no, water is not a quality .. of anything. Wetness (as someone pointed out) is a quality. Water is a substance.

[Amorphos]

Sure, you could describe something as having a water-like quality. But what does it mean to say that water has a water-like quality?

An example would be where you look at an image of water, there is no water there, yet you know it is water because your brain is connecting to the quality ‘water’. without that quality being there, there would be no way to know what water is et al!

- same with colour, smell, sound etc.

...possibly knowledge? at root maybe.

is knowledge a qualia/quality? there is information, but what that info means and its quality [the red apple, and not a collection of particles] is what we remember. the quality is the medium which passes between informations.

_

[fuse]

So is defining an object by what that object is an oxymoron?

An oxymoron expression composed of contradictory or clashing terms. That's a whole other game. The problem with going about definitions in the way you described is that it defeats the purpose of defining anything.

Dictionary
x: has x-like qualities

What does that tell us about x? Little to nothing. It's a nonsensical definition. Similarly, saying water has the quality of water isn't very meaningful.

A floor doesn't have "floor-like" qualities, it just has qualities. There is nothing about the constituent qualities that is floor-like, yet in combination they create a certain form we call a floor.

[fuse]

Sure, you could describe something as having a water-like quality. But what does it mean to say that water has a water-like quality?

An example would be where you look at an image of water, there is no water there, yet you know it is water because your brain is connecting to the quality ‘water’. without that quality being there, there would be no way to know what water is et al!

- same with colour, smell, sound etc.

...possibly knowledge? at root maybe.

is knowledge a qualia/quality? there is information, but what that info means and its quality [the red apple, and not a collection of particles] is what we remember. the quality is the medium which passes between informations.

_

What we are able to do is recognize patterns and generalize from them. From a set of specific examples, we abstract a general idea/type/category. Water, tree, yellow, car, etc. You don't need to suppose special metaphysical qualities for every one of our abstractions. You just need to understand that the foundation of every "type" or abstract idea is a set of instances that can be thought or perceived to share discrete characteristics, qualities, or forms. Given a representation with enough of the right characteristics, we recognize the thing as something we know.

Quality is not a medium. Our body, our senses, our consciousness - these are the mediums through which human experience as we know it is possible. From our experiences, we abstract qualities that allow us to relate and categorize each experience.

[MagsJ]

So is defining an object by what that object is an oxymoron?

An oxymoron expression composed of contradictory or clashing terms. That's a whole other game. The problem with going about definitions in the way you described is that it defeats the purpose of defining anything.

[[Wikipedia:
Types and examples

Oxymorons in the narrow sense are a rhetorical device used deliberately by the speaker, and intended to be understood as such by the listener. In a more extended sense, the term "oxymoron" has also been applied to inadvertent or incidential contradictions, as in the case of "dead metaphors" ("barely clothed", "terribly good"). Lederer (1990), in the spirit of "recreational linguistics", goes as far as to construct "logological oxymorons" such as reading the word nook as composed of "no" and "ok" or the surname Noyes as composed of "no" plus "yes", or far-fetched punning such as "divorce court" or "press release".[6] There are a number of single-word oxymorons built from "dependent morphemes"[6] (i.e. no longer a productive compound in English, but loaned as a compound from a different language), as with pre-posterous (lit. "with the hinder part before", compare husteron proteron, "upside-down", "head over heels", ass-backwards" etc.)[7] or sopho-more (an artificial Greek compound, lit. "wise-foolish").]]

I guess my constraints of the English language are more broader and less rigid than yours... I do tend to use my language in a very creative way, and the UK English language curriculum has always allowed for that.

Dictionary
x: has x-like qualities

What does that tell us about x? Little to nothing. It's a nonsensical definition.

What differentiates a picture frame from a flatscreen TV, a floor from a ceiling or wall?

Similarly, saying water has the quality of water isn't very meaningful.

But I would say that water having water-like qualities is helpful in differentiating it from, say.. clear gelo.

A floor doesn't have "floor-like" qualities, it just has qualities. There is nothing about the constituent qualities that is floor-like, yet in combination they create a certain form we call a floor.

Then why do we not call a floor a ceiling or wall? because what makes a floor floor-like is that it is always below us, as opposed to a ceiling or wall.. such miss-labellings are made by children.. until they learn otherwise.

[Amorphos]

Quality is not a medium.

It is the thing passed between two or more different other things, like different objects have the quality of colour. For example light and brains computers etc. That’s a medium.

Get past the terms and simply ask; what is colour? In all instances. it is not a problem in language or definition, its a problem that our scientific understanding can't tell us what colour is.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Water certainly has a 'quality' that humans lack ... water follows the laws of nature. When it gets cold enough water freezes ... when it gets hot enough water boils ... and most importantly ... water never attempts to flow uphill ... ergo: fight the laws of gravity.

Hopefully, the day will come when humans adopt this particular 'quality' of water.

. http://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/09-Guo-M ... d-Holt.pdf

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Man defies gravity ... ain't it wonderful!!

Man Defies Gravity.jpg (10.04 KiB) Viewed 900 times

[fuse]

I guess my constraints of the English language are more broader and less rigid than yours... I do tend to use my language in a very creative way, and the UK English language curriculum has always allowed for that.

Not sure that's the case. Also not sure how "defining an object by what that object is" could be an oxymoron, but I'm interested to hear how you're thinking about it.

But I would say that water having water-like qualities is helpful in differentiating it from, say.. clear gelo.

It would only be helpful if you described what those "water-like qualities" are. The term water-like is just a form of imprecise and circular short-hand that doesn't really mean anything.

Then why do we not call a floor a ceiling or wall?

The answer to this was included in what I said before. Because there are a combination of qualities and contexts which together have a particular meaning to us - that of a floor. The concept of a floor is ours. A floor is not floor-like, it is a floor, because we recognize its qualities and context.

[fuse]

Water certainly has a 'quality' that humans lack ... water follows the laws of nature. When it gets cold enough water freezes ... when it gets hot enough water boils ... and most importantly ... water never attempts to flow uphill ... ergo: fight the laws of gravity.

Hopefully, the day will come when humans adopt this particular 'quality' of water.

. http://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/09-Guo-M ... d-Holt.pdf

And humans have a nature of their own, which drives their behavior nonetheless.

[fuse]

Quality is not a medium.

It is the thing passed between two or more different other things, like different objects have the quality of colour. For example light and brains computers etc. That’s a medium.

That's pretty vague to me. If I seem obtuse about language it's because countless discussions have gone around in circles because no one really knows or clarifies what the other person is saying.

Get past the terms and simply ask; what is colour? In all instances. it is not a problem in language or definition, its a problem that our scientific understanding can't tell us what colour is.

Can you explain more about what the deal is with color? Do you have a source for this problem that I could look into?

[James S Saint]

An object (or substance) is not a quality. And a quality is not an object. EOS.

[Amorphos]

Fuse

That's pretty vague to me. If I seem obtuse about language it's because countless discussions have gone around in circles because no one really knows or clarifies what the other person is saying.

That’s fair enough, but it will be vague when no-one has answers yet. I do struggle to explain e.g. what color/light is in my brain e.g. in dreams, especially when it is not light. Or like the example I gave; have you seen optical illusions where a guy has an image on a board, then moves one piece and now you see it as a different colour. Now I get that the brain can do graphics like computers can, but unless it can produce light internally much like pixels on a monitor, then I don’t know how it is producing colour.

The deeper problem is then asking what colour is in the mind or the world, how do transparent photons make coloured light? I assume something happens when they interact e.g. on water particles in a rainbow, but we are still pulling colour out of our asses - so to speak. There is a quality of ‘colour’ that happens, same in the mind.

I understand that cells produce photons, that the brain is making light, but what and where is the screen. How can the brain be seeing photons inside cells all at once to make the full image of what we see.

[James S Saint]

I understand that cells produce photons, that the brain is making light, but what and where is the screen. How can the brain be seeing photons inside cells all at once to make the full image of what we see.

They do not produce light. A "photon" is merely a small puff of EMR energy, not necessarily associated with visible light. The energy is picked up on EEGs.