The Force and 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"
Apprentice under Training Master Senior Knight Ryujin
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"
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."
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)
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.
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.
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 art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook.” William James
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.
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.
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?
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...