As you have indicated, H2O and water are very different concepts.

Water and H2O are two different things... — RogueAI

Well, no; they are two different references to the same sort of thing. It's important to express such things well, so that confusion does not follow.

Modal logic and all that.

I bounced this off one of my favorite philosophers, and he directed me to 2d semantics, where I quickly got lost.

They're not different 'things'. They're one and the same substance. But one does not need to know everything about a thing in order successfully to be talking about it. And two people can know quite different things about something and be talking about one and the same thing and not realize it.

Perhaps I know Jennifer as an artist. Whereas you have no idea about this side of Jennifer and know her as the director of a bank. You had no idea that Jennifer paints, and I had no idea that Jennifer is the director of a bank. Nevertheless, we're talking about one and the same person.

I don't think they refer to the same thing. "Water" can refer to a physical substance or an immaterial one (think of "water" in an idealistic universe- it refers to an immaterial thing, an idea). H2O only refers to a physical substance.

I don't think they refer to the same thing. "Water" can refer to a physical substance or an immaterial one (think of "water" in an idealistic universe- it refers to an immaterial thing, an idea). H2O only refers to a physical substance. — RogueAI

What do you say about my example of Jennifer - are we both talking about the same person?

I take it the answer is an obvious 'yes'.

Now does it make any difference if, despite my belief that Jennifer is an artist, she's never painted anything in her life? That is, she's shown me paintings and told me she has painted them, and on that basis I have formed the belief that she is a painter, but in fact she was lying the whole time and has never painted a thing?

I take it that the ansewr is obvious: we're still talking about the same person. I (falsely) believe she is an artist; you correctly believe she is the director of a bank. That my belief about Jennifer is false makes no real difference, so long as it was through interacting with Jennifer that I acquired it.

Well, a scientist who has examined water in a certain way and formed the belief that it is H2o is still talking about the same substance as I am, even though I am an immaterialist and believe that no material substances exist in reality and thus that water is not composed of tiny molecules.

Between two words (de facto) they denote the same thing, with the scientific understanding being, XnY or H2O

Well, a scientist who has examined water in a certain way and formed the belief that it is H2o is still talking about the same substance as I am, even though I am an immaterialist and belief that no material substances exist in reality.

The typical scientist is going to think that H2O is a physical substance that exists external to you. You, the idealist, would obviously not agree with that.

As far as Jennifer goes, we're talking about the same person, but not necessarily the same thing. You, the materialist, are referring to a collection of particles. Me, the idealist, am referring to...an aspect of the one-mind? But obviously the idealist is not going to see Jennifer as a physical thing. Personhood complicates things.

Also, I'm not assuming you're an idealist or materialist.

But H2O specifically refers to a physical thing. That's not true with water.

Interesting, but not something with which I am familiar. Cheers - might look into it sometime.

"Water" can refer to a physical substance or an immaterial one — RogueAI

That water can refer to something else doesn't seem relevant here.

If I am a materialist and you are an immaterialist, we're still talking about the same person, Jennifer - the same object - even though we have radically different ideas about the nature of this object.

So, you and I have quite different ideas about Jennifer - I think she's an artist and you think she isn't - yet we're both talking about the same person.

This is why materialists and immaterialists can be said to be 'disagreeing' about the nature of water as opposed to talking about quite different things.

"Water" is consistent with two different versions of reality: idealism and materialism. H2O is only consistent with materialism. It makes no sense to say that hydrogen ideas combine with oxygen ideas to produce a water idea.

If I am a materialist and you are an immaterialist, we're still talking about the same person, Jennifer - the same object - even though we have radically different ideas about the nature of this object.

I would replace "Jennifer" with "house plant" because personhood issues muddy the water. Also, "object" implies a physical thing. So, if we're both referring to the same house plant, I would say we're both referring to a collection of shared perceptions we have (at least, we think they're shared) that we give the label "house plant" to: it's located over there (or seems to be over there, the idealist would say), it's green, has three leaves, etc. That, we agree on. What the ultimate nature of the house plant is, we might not agree on.

So, you and I have quite different ideas about Jennifer - I think she's an artist and you think she isn't - yet we're both talking about the same person.

The same person, yes. A shared sense of perceptions that we label "Jennifer", yes. The same thing, no. To get to "thing", I would have to unpack what you mean by "Jennifer", and there would eventually be a disagreement, I think.

This is why materialists and immaterialists can be said to be 'disagreeing' about the nature of water as opposed to talking about quite different things.

Agreed.

It makes no sense to say that hydrogen ideas combine with oxygen ideas to produce a water idea. — RogueAI

I don't think anyone claims that.

Yes, H2O only refers to a physical thing. Water can refer to a physical and/or non-physical thing.

Well, all you are saying is that the word "water" could be used to refer to other things besides water - sure, i could name my goldfish "water".

But water is physicals stuff.

Water and H2O — RogueAI

This is a problem of incomplete specification, and the confusion and foolishness that can result when referring to things in contexts requiring a more complete specification than is given. Pursuing it as if a real issue is worse than foolishness.

Well, all you are saying is that the word "water" could be used to refer to other things besides water - sure, i could name my goldfish "water".

I'm not saying that. I'm saying water is consistent with two modes of reality: materialism and idealism. H2O is only consistent with materialism.

And this has nothing to do with naming goldfish. If we both are looking at a glass of water, and I say "that's a glass of water", that statement makes sense in an idealistic reality and a materialistic reality. If I say, "That's a glass of H2O", that only makes sense in a materialistic reality.

But water is physicals stuff.

It's ideas all the way down. Seriously, why torment yourself positing the existence of unprovable stuff? Materialism is not needed to solve anything. It creates endless problems.

I bounced this off one of my favorite philosophers, and he directed me to 2d semantics, where I quickly got lost. — RogueAI

I don't know what you said there but if you're interested I'd like to chime in.

First off, water is an older concept than H2O. Those who first encountered water most certainly didn't have knowledge of chemistry and so wouldn't have understood water in terms of Hydrogen and Oxygen (H2O).

Thus, I surmise, correctly I suppose, that water was defined in terms of its physical properties - transparent, liquid, odorless, tasteless, good for washing, bathing, drinking, putting out fires, cooling the body, and so on.

Imagine now an alien world, another planet, inhabited by aliens and there's a substance on that planet that fits the description I gave above of water. Call this substance retaw. What retaw is to these aliens is water to us, in terms of its physical properties that is.

However, when we do a chemical analysis of retaw, we discover that it's CH4 and we know water is H2O. Basically, water isn't always H2O. Alien retaw is water to us and our water is alien retaw; they both have a similar function in, essentially, being the basis for life as we know it and ss the aliens know it but they're chemically distinct species.

It's ideas all the way down. — RogueAI

Yeah, nuh. I don't want a nice cool drink of ideas on a hot day. You're on your own there.

I lol'd, which in the end, is the mark of a good discussion.

I would replace "Jennifer" with "house plant" because personhood issues muddy the water. — RogueAI

It doesn't muddy it, so much as clarify it. I'm an immaterialist, but I'm still talking about the same person when I talk about Jennifer as someone who is a materialist. We differ radically in what we think Jennifer - the object - is made of, but we are talking about the same entity nonetheless. If we were not, then materialists and immaterialists would not be disagreeing with one another, but talking past one another.

If I think the distant object is cylindrical, but you think it is square, we are still talking about the same object, even though if it is cylindrical it is not square and vice versa.

If we were looking in different directions, 'then' we would not be talking about the same thing, but just mistakenly thinking we were.

The same person, yes. A shared sense of perceptions that we label "Jennifer", yes. The same thing, no. To get to "thing", I would have to unpack what you mean by "Jennifer", and there would eventually be a disagreement, I think. — RogueAI

No, it's the same thing. We just disagree about the nature of what we are perceiving.

This can be illustrated quite easily. Just imagine two people in exactly the same perceptual state. They both get the identical impression of a person, and they both label this person Jennifer. However, one has got to be in this state via a drug and the other by sensibly encountering Jennifer. Are they both talking about the same person when they talk about Jennifer? No. One is talking about a drug induced hallucination ,whereas the other is talking about Jennifer. The fact the perceptual experience is identical does not entail that they are talking about the same thing, then.

Now imagine two people in quite different perceptual states - one is only hearing Jennifer (via a phone) whereas the other is only seeing her. Are they perceiving the same person? Yes.

There's a famous thought experiment - designed by Hilary Putnam - partly to illustrate this point. Imagine a twin earth in which there is a substance that has all the same surface properties as water - Twater - but that has a different chemical composition (XYZ, not H2O). Well, are those on the twin earth talking about water when they talk about twater? That is, if we could somehow bring a denizen of the twin earth to ours and they spotted some water in a lake and said "water!" would they be talking correctly? Surely not. For they use 'water' to refer to a substance that has a chemical composition XYZ, not H2O, whereas the stuff in the lack is H2O.

I saw a comic once about two guys having lunch. One says I'll have H20 and the other guy says I'll have H20 too. In the next panel he's dead.

Old but good. :up:

H2O only refers to a physical substance. — RogueAI

I don't understand. Surely under idealism, if I open up my tap and let that stuff go into a cup, that's called water, right? Surely then, under idealism, if I run a DC current through the water and collect the bubbles off of the positive side, that's called oxygen, right? And if I do that on the negative side, that's called hydrogen? Then why can't H2O be an "idea"?

As you have indicated, H2O and water are very different concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Banno plays a confusing game.

Transworld identification between world alleviates the referent issue, and a pinch of scientific thought about the misnomer for water in science.

I think the difference mainly shows up when we're talking about what people know or believe.

Harvey believes H2O is combustible. He doesn't believe water is, though. He just doesn't know the two have the same extension.

Transworld identification between world alleviates the referent issue, a — Shawn

That's not really the issue though. What's of significance is that we often can't layout the meaning of a word by pointing to it's extension.

Banno is dropping bits again.

That's not really the issue though. What's of significance is that we often can't layout the meaning of a word by pointing to it's extension. — frank

Extension? Meaning is not relevant here, but what is, is that the extension is enabled for lack of a better term, by science.