Moderator: Only_Humean
Amorphos wrote: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.
?
MagsJ wrote: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.
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.
Stephen C Pedersen wrote: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 wrote:Is ‘water’ a quality of water?
Abstract wrote:Love is the gravity of the soul.
'Water' is just the abstraction of a phenomenon. The phenomenon is the thing, 'water' is how we refer to it.
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.
fuse wrote: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?
MagsJ wrote:fuse wrote: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.
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?
MagsJ wrote:So is defining an object by what that object is an oxymoron?
Amorphos wrote: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.
_
[[Wikipedia:fuse wrote: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.MagsJ wrote:So is defining an object by what that object is an oxymoron?
What differentiates a picture frame from a flatscreen TV, a floor from a ceiling or wall?Dictionary
x: has x-like qualities
What does that tell us about x? Little to nothing. It's a nonsensical definition.
But I would say that water having water-like qualities is helpful in differentiating it from, say.. clear gelo.Similarly, saying water has the quality of water isn't very meaningful.
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.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.
Quality is not a medium.
MagsJ wrote: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.
MagsJ wrote:But I would say that water having water-like qualities is helpful in differentiating it from, say.. clear gelo.
MagsJ wrote:Then why do we not call a floor a ceiling or wall?
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote: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
Amorphos wrote: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.
Amorphos wrote: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.
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.
Amorphos wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]