Are you wet whilst underwater

2can

Ok, i know this may sound mad but hear me out. Whilst holidaying recently a thought occured to me, 'Is one WET whilst completely submerged in water or is it only when one is out of water that they become WET?'.

This caused a heated debate with the majority of people dismissing the thought as pure nonsence.

What do you think?

p.pete

Apologies to the philosophy forum if this is too low brow - I think it's pure nonscence personally

Bryan Habana

2can wrote: »

Is one WET whilst completely submerged in water

Yes.

dissident

Depends on your definition of wet

Black Swan

This topic is all wet!

OK, I'll play along. If I was diving in a dry suit, I would be dry while underwater. But if in a wet suit, then wet.

sink

When used as a adjective wet means literally cover with liquid. Under water you are covered in liquid and therefore you are wet. This is not philosophy this is semantics.

nyarlothothep

hmmm, can't articulate this properly but if you are underwater I would say you are not wet, you are only wet when you emerge because prior to this water was surrounding you and you were part of the environment, so wetness was indistinguishable from non wetness.

Madame Razz

Seriously, in all manner and sense of practicality, you are 100% wet; except when in a dry suit, in which case only your head/face is wet. And ask a diver whose drysuit leaks for confirmation, they have to endure that squirmy feeling as the water begins to seep thru the leak!!!

sink

nyarlothothep wrote: »

hmmm, can't articulate this properly but if you are underwater I would say you are not wet, you are only wet when you emerge because prior to this water was surrounding you and you were part of the environment, so wetness was indistinguishable from non wetness.

You can't not not be wet when you are submerged in water (apart from a dry suit obviously). That is why you can't cognitively distinguish dryness underwater from wetness, the state of dryness does not exist and to say it does is a fallacy.

dissident

You'd still be wet in a dry suit as the water would still be covering you

sink

dissident wrote: »

You'd still be wet in a dry shoot as the water would still be covering you

The dry suit would be wet, you would be dry.

nyarlothothep

sink wrote: »

You can't not not be wet when you are submerged in water (apart from a dry suit obviously). That is why you can't cognitively distinguish dryness underwater from wetness, the state of dryness does not exist and to say it does is a fallacy.

Wetness is only felt when there is an outer state of dryness to distinguish the presence of liquid on oneself.

dissident

sink wrote: »

The dry suit would be wet, you would be dry.

But you would still be covered by water, and by your own definition that means you are wet

nyarlothothep

dissident wrote: »

But you would still be covered by water, and by your own definition that means you are wet

actually dont dry suits have a thin film of water in them to maintain temperature?

sink

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Wetness is only felt when there is an outer state of dryness to distinguish the presence of liquid on oneself.

As I pointed out you can't distinguish dryness from wetness underwater not because the state of wetness does not exist but because the state of dryness does not exist. Take an analogy of the state of dreaming, when you are in a deep dream you sometimes can't distinguish it from reality. That does not mean you are not dreaming. Similarly just because when you are underwater and the sensation is not the same when you get out of the water does not mean you were not wet underwater.

dissident wrote: »

But you would still be covered by water, and by your own definition that means you are wet

If you take that to it logical extreme then people who are in submarines are wet. My definition needs to be refined to add the condition that the liquid must be touching the skin.

dissident

sink wrote: »

If you take that to it logical extreme then people who are in submarines are wet. My definition needs to be refined to add the condition that the liquid must be touching the skin.

So then it depends on your own definition and there’s no cohesive answer :P

Madame Razz

Both a diver and a submarine are under water.

But a diver is immersed in water and logically is wet(except if in a drysuit, but very few of these dont leak so he/she is prob in some way wet!!), whereas a submarine is submerged in water, under the surface, but not necessarily wet??

N'est pas??

This thread caught my eye as I'm a diver; hope I'm not lowering the tone here;)

nyarlothothep

sink wrote: »

As I pointed out you can't distinguish dryness from wetness underwater not because the state of wetness does not exist but because the state of dryness does not exist. Take an analogy of the state of dreaming, when you are in a deep dream you sometimes can't distinguish it from reality. That does not mean you are not dreaming. Similarly just because when you are underwater and the sensation is not the same when you get out of the water does not mean you were not wet underwater.



If you take that to it logical extreme then people who are in submarines are wet. My definition needs to be refined to add the condition that the liquid must be touching the skin.

yes I agree with you. I was thinking of wet in a different way. Although underwater should be revised in the dictionary as in water.

2can

i am the great man who started this whole debate (bow) and i am glad to see that someone is seein the sense of all this. If you are surrounded by water you cant really be wet because there is nothing else but water. it is only when u enter the dry environment that you become wet. There must be a different word or state when u are submerged in water because being 'wet' isn't correct.

This debate has no room for rash practicality so just have a think about it before you type.

Madame Razz

2can wrote: »

i am the great man who started this whole debate (bow) and i am glad to see that someone is seein the sense of all this. If you are surrounded by water you cant really be wet because there is nothing else but water. it is only when u enter the dry environment that you become wet. There must be a different word or state when u are submerged in water because being 'wet' isn't correct.

This debate has no room for rash practicality so just have a think about it before you type.

Given that in most cases being underwater is a physical state, it has everything to do with practicality and little to do with theory.

Yes the theoretical laws of physics apply, but they apply in practice.

I am merely offering the opinion as somebody who regularly goes underwater; as opposed to musing about it in front of a computer screen.

Gregor Samsa

2can wrote: »

If you are surrounded by water you cant really be wet because there is nothing else but water. it is only when u enter the dry environment that you become wet

So, by collorary, if you are on land and surrounded by arid air, would you say that you're not really dry, since there's no liquid for you to be wet in contrast to?

King John V

Wetness means an object or body is in contact with water or anoter liquid. If you're swimming in water and the water is in physical contact with your body then, by definition you're wet. I don't see anything philisophical about that.

jetski

2can wrote: »

Ok, i know this may sound mad but hear me out. Whilst holidaying recently a thought occured to me, 'Is one WET whilst completely submerged in water or is it only when one is out of water that they become WET?'.

This caused a heated debate with the majority of people dismissing the thought as pure nonsence.

What do you think?

you are MORE wet while under water than you are when you get out.


Give up

nyarlothothep

wetness though could also mean the cold clammy sensation of water evaporating on your skin as you emerge into a dry environment.

King John V

2can wrote: »

Ok, i know this may sound mad but hear me out. Whilst holidaying recently a thought occured to me, 'Is one WET whilst completely submerged in water or is it only when one is out of water that they become WET?'.

This caused a heated debate with the majority of people dismissing the thought as pure nonsence.

What do you think?

To answer your question: yes, you are wet when submerged in water. Being wet is NOT a perception. By definition it means a body or object is in direct physical contact with water or a liquid. A person submerged in water meets that criteria. The alternative would be to suggest that a body or object is completely dry when in water which is clearly untrue.

Cinful

2can wrote: »

'Is one WET whilst completely submerged in water or is it only when one is out of water that they become WET?'.

Define in sexual terms? Different conditions? Meaning?

Black Swan

Shhhhhhhhhhh Cinful! You'll wake up the Freudians.

Valmont

dissident wrote: »

Depends on your definition of wet

spat my tea out, brilliant:D

most pointlessly hilarious thread ever.

Brian

nyarlothothep wrote: »

actually dont dry suits have a thin film of water in them to maintain temperature?

That's wetsuits, working on a similar principle to air-insulation by double glazing. Dry suits just don't allow water in at all, like a rain jacket/pants but with all the openings sealed.

ChocolateSauce

sink wrote: »

When used as a adjective wet means literally cover with liquid. Under water you are covered in liquid and therefore you are wet. This is not philosophy this is semantics.

When used in a scientific term, it refers only to water. If you were submerged and soaked in an organic solvent like acetone, you'd be dry! Scientifically speaking....

Whispered

It's means you are really, really, really, ridiculously good looking

Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty.