The Force and Consciousness

Moderators: Adder, Adhara

The Force and Consciousness 05 Sep 2013 17:11 #117398

If your question is, "Does the Force have consciousness?" I would interpret that as, "Is there consciousness within the Force?" to which I would reply that the answer is quite obviously yes. I am a part of the Force and I have consciousness so therefore the Force has consciousness.

If the question intended however was, "Is the Force a consciousness?" I might hesitate to answer. The Force in my belief is not a single consciousness, it is however a collective consciousness. There are billions of consciousnesses all coming together and there are forms of consciousness we cannot explain. I feel that there is no simple answer to this question as posed because consciousness is not an exact science, and mayhaps it never will be. It all comes down to belief and in the end neither side can "win" in the consciousness vs. non-consciousness debate because there is not definitive proof.

So, does the Force have consciousness or does it not?
I must agree with Proteus in saying both and neither.

It is similar to the study of light.
When you test light to see if it acts as a particle, it does.
However when you test light to see if it acts like a wave, it also does.
Is light a particle or a wave?
It is simultaneously both and neither.

It is important to remember that what is observed corresponds directly to how it is being observed.

May the Force be with you,
Rai
The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant;

It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.

Apprentice under Training Master Ryujin
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jestor, Wescli Wardest, Proteus, Lykeios

The Force and Consciousness 05 Sep 2013 19:18 #117415

JohnsonMD wrote:
Let me pose the following question for discussion:

Does the Force have Consciousness?

For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume:
  • Consciousness is defined as: the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself; Sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

If possible, please provide some foundation to your answer - so as to help define what that may be (or not be) and provide insight for those also seeking such knowledge.

Nope The force is a sum but not the whole. Made up of all living forces but is not life or a life as defined above. If it were it would be beyond us anyway and beyond our ability to understand it but that doesn't mean we can know of it.

Don't over/deep think or try too hard to define this stuff this stuff. Just live it. :)

Does a small child deep think or define how to walk? Nope, it just gets up and learns how to walk. :)

Good question though.

Qi "The more general probllem of impeded qi flow is experiencing yourself as a passive victim of circumstances that cause the conditions of your life. By contrast, in qigong we learn to exprience ourselves as empowered participants in our health and self development." Kevin D. Schoeninger

The Force and Consciousness 05 Sep 2013 22:06 #117424

Thanks for the responses everyone!

Some of the thoughts provided I can find common ground with, some of them I cannot.

However, said discussion has brought up topics and other aspects that didn't cross my mind prior, or served to either support or deny what I had already thought.

In the end...I have found this productive and worthwhile.

Thanks!
"There are attempts, and there are accomplishments. Histories only praise one."
The following user(s) said Thank You: Raikoutenshi
Last Edit: 05 Sep 2013 22:06 by JohnsonMD.

The Force and Consciousness 14 Sep 2013 06:39 #118261

JohnsonMD wrote:
sidvkili wrote:
JohnsonMD wrote:
Can you expand on the why/how of that Alexandre?

does everything need deep thought?

I could just respond to that by stating, "yes," but wouldn't be helpful now would it. ;)

Everything needs deep thought so that it can be understood, especially those things which are not self evident. The alternative is to know blindly, which imo is folly.

For example; the boots that I just put on my feet and laced up. They at one point required deep thought(s) so that I could come to understand that:
- They protect my feet,
- they are made out of this and that material,
- they are not water-proof! :(
- they are within the regulations (Army)

etc, etc

That level of thinking isn't too complicated, but it does require that I think about it further than just putting something on my feet and calling it a boot.

Things such as the Force, or God, or dogmatic approaches to life and the great mysteries therein require deep thought. Now, maybe that deep thought is not so deep for other people - however, it is necessary for me to have this understanding. Thus, if I ask for clarification, it is so that I can think more deeply upon what is said to me and thusly apply it to my line of thinking. Answers like, "yes" etc, are not helpful in that cause and only serve to complicate an already complicated issue (regardless of the ease at which the one who states such finds the issue complicated for them or not).

Hope that helps to explain where I am coming from.

yeah, it proves my point.
everything doesn't need deep thought. You need or want deep thought.

I stole my friends lunch a few days ago. Why? because I was hungry and I wanted what he had. Did you understand why I did it? Did it have deep thought?


Nope
I like the stars.

The Force and Consciousness 14 Sep 2013 11:17 #118270

A hypothetical scenario:

Premise 1: I define the Force as an existing, transcendental, conscious, eternal, interactive being. A being that fits not this description is not the Force.
Premise 2: The being we talk about is the Force.
Conclusion: Therefore, the being has consciousness i.e. the Force has consciousness.

This is a form of the ontological argument for the existence of God - by defining an entity in a certain way it becomes impossible for any entity under the same label in the course of the given discussion to be anything else. That way you can prove any property the entity might have like consciousness or existence: If it had not the property, the label would no longer fit.

Now the flaw is, of course, that it can prove everything and therefore is useless in proving anything.
You define the Force as something conscious (or not), and it is conscious (or not) so long as it is the Force.
You define it as existing and it exists so long as it is the Force (or not).
You define it as both invisible and pink and so it becomes. You can see where I'm going here.

Since we haven't observed an entity that we agreed to call the Force, our only way to speak of its properties is in defining it as whatever each of us wants it to be. That's a fun exercise but utterly useless in the end for its only potential is to create disagreements which can not be resolved - while it helps us no bit in learning anything about the Force.

The Force and Consciousness 14 Sep 2013 13:08 #118275

  • Alan
  • Alan's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Knight
  • ID: 10670
A discussion regarding definitions is a helpful beginning to understanding, especially for us as we seek wisdom about the nature of the Force.

Some forms of consciousness are highly cognitive while others are less so, and still other forms (meditation, for example) lack that aspect of consciousness that we might call thinking (that is, thinking as an inner dialogue of words and images about some particular idea or object, cognition as problem-solving, and the like). It has been helpful for me to blur the distinctions that traditionally separate feeling and thinking. Think with the body. Eventually, as Alexander suggests, the cognitive activity of thinking about the Force fades as one lives it.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion

The Force and Consciousness 14 Sep 2013 14:05 #118280

  • Streen
  • Streen's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 2215
JohnsonMD wrote:
Does the Force have Consciousness?

Well, the way I see it, we have consciousness, and we are one with the Force, so by extension the Force has consciousness.
You can travel for years, through mountains and deserts, and never find it. That is because it was always with you.

The Force and Consciousness 14 Sep 2013 14:48 #118290

Alan wrote:
A discussion regarding definitions is a helpful beginning to understanding, especially for us as we seek wisdom about the nature of the Force.
Bull. If one wishes to learn something about a topic, one better starts studying it and not making things up. Interestingly, if the subject is something real, the observations usually can be confirmed intersubjectively. Now, reality, of course, is in some areas a rather blurry term, but let's not go down that track just yet. Saying that defining a thing helps you understand it, is an admission that the thing in question is not real. Conversely, if it is real, whatever time we spend defining its properties on our own rather than observing them on the object, will be wasted.

Either way, the Force was never too clearly defined here so what the OP ends up with after this thread, is being alone left to make his own opinion on the subject - something he might as well have gotten without this thread altogether.

Also, noone is doing the entirety of the Jedi community any service by defining the Force in his own way. Its not that there haven't been way too well defined gods before and have we not seen enough of where that usually leads? And yet, leaving it undefined leaves the question unanswered... Tough dilemma, isn't it? :D

However, I also realize that this question is more about opinions and less asking for a definite answer, so I should take this a bit easier, I suppose... :blush:
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by Edan)
    • Days 39 and 40 checking in Day 39 was a rest day Day 40 was today. I am so bloody pleased with myself today. This week was pretty hard work wise and I was so tired today it took all my mental effort to get changed and go to the gym. All the negativity I've felt recently about not reaching my goal was completely proved wrong today, I ran 6.7 k today (55 minutes, 50 + cooldown), 6.2 k before my cooldown. If I can run that on a bad day, then I can bloody well run 8 k on a good one. I actually ran 5 minutes longer than I was supposed to, and 10 minutes longer than I thought I was going to. Track of the run was 'Back to Black' by Amy Winehouse. Was some kind of sleeper agent trigger song because when it came on after 20 minutes I suddenly felt immediately like I could finish the run.
    • Virtues or Choices? (Last post by Silvermane)
    • Again, you make a valid point with the example given, Wescli. I do believe I touched on this, but it is a choice, when the situation allows. There are circumstances and situations out of our control where we have no choice but to wait or to "be patient". These situations give us a chance to refocus our thoughts and make better decisions. In Wescli's example while he was waiting, he could have gotten frustrated and pitched a fit, knowing it would do no good or he could have waited and accepted that it was out of his control and find something more constructive or worthwhile to pour his focus into while he waited. I think Patience is more of a practice, like Jediism, to better ourselves by making better choices when situations allow and moving forward and not falling backward.
    • The Balance (Last post by Rickie The Grey)
    • Balance is dynamic. We're never perfectly balanced but waver over the balance point. We may be still for a moment but soon move off center. We're complex creatures, it's the nature of life. Striving for balance in ones life is always a work in progress. What I attempt is not to tilt my balance to the extreems, one way or the other. As you live , learn and gain experience (learn from your mistakes) the fluctuations in life are less extreme. Some may call this mellowed out or at peace with the world. Lifes a journey. :(
    • Talent (Last post by Revan Falton)
    • My hands hurt and fingers are all cramped up just from watching these unbelievably talented individuals!
    • Becoming a member.. (Last post by Jestor)
    • It does tell you it fan take up to two weeks to get processed...;) I've had some things pop up but should get done this week...:)
    • Martial Arts as a metaphor of Personal Behavior? (Last post by rugadd)
    • I'll save Shaolin philosophy for another thread. Martial Arts wiped away misconceptions and delusions I had. Shaolin is a very unforgiving art in that you don't get to stop until you have too. Reality comes crashing in very fast because of this. What we are capable of, those wispy dreams born from fantastic stories, are gone the instant you realize you can only do 7 pushups. Gone are the fictitious flips as you struggle with a simple bear crawl. No more does one say to themselves "I would see it coming, know and do just the right thing" in a fight after one 2 minute round. Training for me taught me humility. It is the first lesson and an important one. After a few years in martial arts, one does not WANT to have to fight. They have to much experience with their own body to want to put that harm on anyone, or suffer it themselves. It is about being forced to see who you really are instead of what you think of yourself to be. One of the reasons I think everyone should be beat up at least once in their lives.
    • What is TOTJO? (Last post by Akkarin)
    • I'm a bit late to this party, but with regards to the defining thing brought up earlier, at TotJO we officially don't ever take any authoritative position on the definition of a Jedi. We say "This is what makes you a Jedi by our standards" and don't take much interest in what other people think, because why should we be beholden to them for our definition? We do not expect them to be beholden to us by our definition (which for TotJO is: "You are a Jedi if you complete the application and take the Simple Oath - which is a demonstration of your acceptance of our doctrine). On the Homepage: www.templeofthejediorder.org/ the text just above the Jedi Believe part was changed specifically to "If you wish to further your understanding of the Jedi Path then you can begin the Initiate Programme", because the training is supplemental to one's understanding of the doctrine which is what makes one a Jedi in our eyes. While the vast majority of members here do undertake the training it is not required. We are a gathering place of like-minded people who have taken on the name of Jedi as an umbrella term for our beliefs. Like-minded means that we will all come here, and stay here (or not), for a variety of different reasons. The Temple offers each of us something different, because it means something different to each of us. If people are worried that TotJO is ever trying to take some kind of authoritative position on what makes someone a Jedi then that person has perhaps missed the numerous instances in which we have always stated that we never do that - especially in official communication with non-Jedi news-people and students.
    • Further Religious Structure (Last post by Connor L.)
    • All we can be sure of is that nobody knows everything. Carlos was not there when the book was written. So, he can't know what the right answer is, EVEN IF HE GETS IT RIGHT. :O It's a crazy thought, isn't it?
    • American men, American media, and the villificatio... (Last post by Oneiros)
    • Quote: I don't mean from the book itself but from the article. My experience of TV tells me it's rubbish, with the only guy on TV that looks normal to me being norm from "new yankee workshop". though I'm sure there are other instances of men not being mis-represented. I know of at least one show that makes fun of women ("real housewives of some town"), but i find it particularly distasteful, my wife is the one who watches this sort of rubbish (This stuff genuinely makes me feel like after 10 years free of TV I should never have hooked it up to an aerial) Well yes, I will absolutely concede the point that TV is 100% rubbish except for Looney Toons. That is just pure gold. I think my biggest problem with the points made in the article is that they are all based on the idea that (to put it simply) the media controls the way you think. I only believe this is the case if someone does almost nothing except immerse themselves in media. If all someone does all day is watch TV, then all they're going to know is what they see on TV and that will shape their world view. But by that logic I could say the same thing about a person who only reads books by a single author on a single subject. In both cases their perspective will be limited, but do we criticize publishing company's for printing books? No because that would be crazy and there are plenty of books to choose from so nobody is limited. That is why it is important to be mindful of our thoughts and strengthen our mental resolve so that we are not influenced by this outside noise, but rather stay focused on our internal clarity so our perspective can be open instead of limited. I understand the worry that children won't be able to maintain a clear enough mind to resist all the messages in the media, but that's why education is so important. If a child is well educated and well rounded, they will be able to see through all the rhetoric and labels and half-baked sound bytes and find the truth. This article only adds to the noise they'll have to cut through. It comes from the exact same place in someone's heart as the messages it's trying to counter: fear. Fear is not an appropriate tool to teach people. This brings me to my specific examples from the article. I need not read further than the first line to find one. The first thing the writer does is quote Orwell's 1984 and then talk about totalitarian societies. If you're allowed to quote Orwell, you don't live in a totalitarian society. I feel like that's the first book that would get burned. Another example is "Feminism is an ideology, or systematised way of thinking. Many influential feminists have been outspokenly angry about and encouraged violence to men." Aside from the grammatical errors and misidentification, the author doesn't even bother to define feminism. He just says it's an ideology and then jumps right into "violence to men." Through a blatant omission of information, he effectively associates feminism with violence against men. That is being purposefully deceptive in order to make a point. "While there has been some university study of men, it is taken for granted that this will be done from a feminist perspective." That's not what taken for granted means. It doesn't mean automatically assumed, it means to expect someone or something to be always available to serve in some way without thanks or recognition; to value someone or something too lightly. The misuse of a simple phrase speaks to the intellectual value of the article's author. "HOW MEDIA PUT MEN DOWN Some influential media images of men can be found in The Simpsons. The father character, Homer, is lazy, chauvinistic, stupid and irresponsible." I don't watch Simpson's often but I can name a few dad's on TV that are good men: Ned Stark-Game of Thrones, Jerry Stiller-Seinfeld, Jay Pritchett-Modern Family, Burt Hummel-Glee. I could name more. For every "bad" example there is also a "good" example. The article cites a single father figure TV and extrapolates a whole point from it, completely omitting (again) any information to the contrary. If someone is worried about being told how to think, they should steer clear of this article and Jim Macnamara's book because all it does it tell people how to think by focusing on and twisting things to fit a world view instead of looking at the totality of information and developing an unbiased viewpoint from it. the funny thing is, this is exactly the tactic used by the media to do exactly what this article is warning people about: controlling the way you think.
    • Is questioning one's faith inevitable? (Last post by Koffee)
    • It's as natural and inevitable as a snake shedding its skin, yo. In other words, humans are intrinsically metaphysical. As consciousness evolves, so must ones beliefs or "faiths" correspond to this evolution. Faith must decay before it can grow anew, and since growth is a a natural property of consciousness, it follows that all faiths must in some sense decay. This sense of "decay" could be elaborated further, but I would generally consider "questioning" one's faith to be either a kind of decay or a symptom of decay, depending on how you want to approach describing the phenomena. What is essential never really dies, however. So one may qualify my original answer with a few other distinctions and terms, etc.

There are 373 visitors, 4 guests and 38 members online (4  are in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, steamboat28, Jon, Jedi_Roz, ren, Kitsu Tails, Joe, Nakis, Wescli Wardest, Trose , Darren, Red Lila, Proteus, rugadd, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Rickie The Grey, Archon, Kamizu, Edan, Silvermane, Senan, microft, carlos.martinez3, Cabur Senaar, Acheron, Revan Falton, Quae-Do Lumen, Oneiros, Exarchias, j.ezra, Damianmarcos.

Follow Us