The Force and Consciousness

Moderators: Adder, Desolous

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,
"No one entertains the thought that maybe God does not believe in you"
~Bo Burnham

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

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

  • Rickie
  • Rickie's Avatar
  • Member
  • ID: 12235
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.
I used to call myself Rickie The Grey but that was silly so I wish to be called just plain old "Rickie"

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.

"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?

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.
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit. - Stephen W. Hawking

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

  • Alan
  • Alan's Avatar
  • 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
  • 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:
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit. - Stephen W. Hawking
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Jedism hippies? (Last post by Alan)
    • As is with us today, back in the day...Alan Watts was on the 'must read' list. My other favorite was Ram Das. Non-conformity in regards to main stream society was the life-style imperative. But most importantly non-conformity was changing the way you think, so we experimented with not being racists or sexists, nationalists or ethnic chauvinists. Experiencing altered states of consciousness included (for some) drugs but for others meditation.
    • What are you reading right now? (Last post by Calem)
    • I got into this one, Salt: A World History by Mark Kurlansky and it's far more interesting than I'd expected. [image] I knew it was a second hand book but it turned to be not just that but the print made for proofreading which makes it a little special :)
    • Does "love" work? (Last post by Adder)
    • I tend to agree but think its better associated as the living aspect of the Force, where the unifying aspect is more around objective reality IMO. > Can love really save the world? From what? I do use compassion as the polar of evil, so yea maybe B) I am wondering if very one just focused on the purest or highest, most universal form of "love", what kind of world would be live in? I think it would take an energetic form, with all things represented as measures of that love. To act in that realm you'd have to define boundaries still I think, as while it might be seen as ideal to be one with and an extension of that 'love' to act within it as an 'agent' you'd likely need to exert different natures and extents of 'love' beyond your agency - otherwise you'd be exerting your own control over all things within a self centred framework. So understanding other manifestations of complex love (animals etc) as different agents then you might end up with a sort of recontextualization of existence - redefining how things exist. It's a bit confronting to face the dissolution of the 'known' to replace it with some other system of perception, but I do think its worthwhile if done cautiously. I find Buddhism to be the most useful, but lots of spiritual/religious path's have great value in doing it I reckon. > Can I really get to a state of "unconditional", complete, universal love? Only you can answer that :pinch: > where have your explorations in the power of love taken you? Trying to perceive 'love' as a field as a source of information can find attribution to outcomes, but I'm not sure if the association is causal or casual :laugh: Finding connections is fun though.
    • a question about the value of human life (Last post by Gisteron)
    • Sorry to hear you're having tough times, brother. My sympathies... Quote: i present the definition for religion as "what people belive to be true about life, existence, and their place within it" and i suggest that we all develop a religion irrespective of its affiliation, as a natural consequence of being thinking cognitive beings its practically inevitable i dont expect everyone else to adopt this definition for their personal inventory but for the sake of this discussion, going along with this definition, my question becomes; Alrighty... I wouldn't say it is a very proper definition given that most people understand something different and so do the dictionaries. However, since at the end of the day understanding is what words are about we might as well use the shortcut "religion" to mean this. Therefore we can make a few paraphrases later on and I shall mark them as such. For now, a preface: Quote: ... "does an individual unit (unit meaning individual person or group or organization ect) have the right to destroy the whole simply by the fact of having the power?" at heart this is a yes or no question, but the ambiguity of language and the range of potential conceptualization makes it not only debatable, but worse, TEDIOUS Yeeess, unfortunately language is our only hope to communicate at this point. Anyway, about that question. Technically no, might does not make right. Not automatically anyway. Traditionally with increasing power people would tend to grow more careless and personally I find that distasteful. What I do reject, and this is not something you said or implied here, but earlier, is that the frowning upon such behaviour can at all, let alone only be rooted in religious thought. Earlier I thought that you refered to traditional definitions of the word but now we can use yours instead. "What people belive to be true about life, existence, and their place within it" can be just about anything and while this is where ethics must ultimately spawn from, no particular ethics can be deduced pending specific beliefs only few happen to ever share. In other words, even with reference to what they believe about these matters, we ought not expect them to conclude that what we think is the abuse of power is indeed wrong in their view also. Likewise, someone who does not take base beliefs about their place in the universe into account much but instead makes a purely calculating decision might also in most cases not conclude that it is okay to get all genocidal all of a sudden. Ultimately it will depend on their current life goals and what they believe is most helpful to achieve those. So even if we take your definition and plug it in, getting Quote: [What people belive to be true about life, existence, and their place within it] functions to teach humans that it is "wrong" to murder everybody else and take their resources. is strictly incorrect. Some people may believe things that would lead them to conclude that this is wrong, others don't. Some may have other beliefs outside of these that would deter them from such action, others don't. You are assuming that everyone's religion is one that places value on human life and advocates peace, yet that is not part of your definition of religion and frankly it doesn't take much to find people who are at heart hostile and aggressive. Most of them will be so because rather than in spite of their religion, again, using your definition of that word. On the other hand, Quote: Ethics have no foundation without [what people belive to be true about life, existence, and their place within it]. I would tend to agree with. Not every choice we make is an ethical one, albeit that many have ethical implications or application, but the purely moral judgements must ultimately stem from thoughts of this kind. Quote: ... does it make sense that we should intentionally promote ideas which place inherent value on human life? Yes, I consciously omitted the conditions you placed on this and the following question, not because they are uncomfortable but because my answer would be the same irrespective of what the conditions entail, or so I presume. The question, and thus the answer, of course depend on what you mean by "making sense" in this context. Pending that, I shall propose that the answer is no however. What I mean is that while it may be immediately beneficial to promote these ideas, there is always something dark about promoting things we don't know are indeed true; this is even more important when the promoted idea raises more questions than it answers. Value does not need to be inherent in order to be there at all, so it is not necessary to asser that it is inherent. If we do assert that however, the question immediately arises what makes it inherent and why anybody should care unless the value is also subjective to our condition. Historically people have been forced into believing self-evident inherent capital-T Truths at gunpoint, or perhaps rather at the cold blade, which I don't think either of us wants. Maybe less of that would have gone on if the pronouncements were presented as subjective and tentative and accepted for their usefulness rather than for their sacredness. In my opinion, better say X is valuable because Y and not X is valuable, period.
    • Best martial art? (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • Quote: Dim Mak, pressure point fighting style, if there is one fight style that is strong, one finger to put a man down .. [video] this is clearly fake im sure most here are aware of that but to anyone who is uncertain and interested, simply go to youtube and search "knockouts" and see what it really looks like watch a few videos of the real thing then come back and watch this again, and see if you dont spot some of the differences for yourself
    • To the Fatty on the Track (Last post by Talariq)
    • Personally, I love this. She takes the insults so many people sling and turns them into something positive and motivational. If someone said something like this to me, I would take it as a great compliment, which is obviously how it was meant. Just my opinion, but if anyone was offended by this, they are LOOKING for something to be offended by.
    • LuCrae's Question in Another Thread (Last post by Alethea Thompson)
    • Split from the thread about the article in the Guardian recently. Quote: Let's expand and allow for the discussion. What questions or principles do you believe would be necessary for an all encompassing definition or doctrine of Jediism Alethea Thompson? I suspect if we broaden our definition large enough that many of the members here would agree. However, would this broadening detract from the philosophy in any way? I think we can hammer it down to something simple: 1) Do you believe in "the Force"? 2) Do you believe that by following the Jedi Code you can obtain inner balance? 3) Do you believe in helping others in some capacity? 4) Do you believe in self-improvement mentally, physically and spiritually? 5) Do you believe it is possible for anyone to become a Jedi? 6) Do you agree to incorporate all of these into your lifestyle? If you can answer "yes" to all of these questions, and you are sincere about it, then you are a Jedi.
    • The Grateful Thread (Last post by Calem)
    • I am grateful for my mother giving me place to stay a little while until my new apartment's ready for me to move into and grateful for the fuzzy furball dog which rolls over for cuddles every time I come near. There's nothing like an animal to stop time while making it pass unnoticed :)
    • In the News: I am A Jedi (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • fair enough i really am not after a battle of any kind - i am aware of my tendancy to do jump into foolishness and im working on it and the OP is the OP and i ALSO dont mean to derail that
    • This isn’t 1968. Baltimore isn’t Watts. And Hillar... (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • A grand jury has indicted six Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, clearing the path for a criminal trial in the Maryland courts. Freddie Gray died on April 19 from his injuries suffered in police custody. The indictments came nearly three weeks after Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby first announced her decision to bring criminal charges against the officers. While some of the charges have been amended, the most serious ones — second-degree murder against Officer Caesar Goodson and involuntary manslaughter against four of the officers — remained intact. We speak to longtime Baltimore civil rights attorney A. Dwight Pettit. TRANSCRIPT This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A grand jury has indicted six Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, clearing the path for a criminal trial in the Maryland courts. Freddie Gray died on April 19th from his injuries suffered in police custody. His family and attorney say his voice box was crushed and his spine was "80 percent severed at his neck." Gray’s death sparked massive protests nationwide. At a news conference Thursday, Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced the indictments. MARILYN MOSBY: Previously indicated, my office conducted an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the tragic incident with the death of Freddie Gray. On May 1st, our investigation revealed that we had sufficient probable cause to bring charges against six police officers. As our investigation has continued, additional information has been discovered, and as is often the case during an ongoing investigation, charges can and should be revised based upon the evidence. These past two weeks, my team has been presenting evidence to a grand jury that just today returned indictments against all six officers for the following offenses. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The indictments came nearly three weeks after Mosby first announced her decision to bring criminal charges against the officers. While some of the charges have been amended, the most serious ones—second-degree murder against Officer Caesar Goodson and involuntary manslaughter against four of the other officers—remained intact. ----- this is not the full transcript click the link if youre interested in the rest :-)

There are 677 visitors, 17 guests and 41 members online (one in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, Zanthan Storm, Shadouness, Jestor, Jedi_Roz, Karn, Kitsu Tails, Joe, Connor L., Adhara, Proteus, V-Tog, PatrickB, J. K. Barger, Calem, Llama Su, Kamizu, LuCrae Jiddu, mdk, Edan, Pyrus Erath, Venator Mortis, Radar6590, Cristris_Jons, Matsukaze, GalUnDrux, Culla, Exar Qel Droma, Morrison, Rocda, den385, Tk768, OB1Shinobi, Loudzoo, Atticus509, Scorpius, Krieger, MaGnA CrYsTaL, Competent, Protonix, bushidomonk, CryojenX, Willa, Blind, theta, Alfonso, Korvus.

Follow Us