The Force as described by a physicist?

Well, we know that our emotions correlate to specific biochemical and by implication bioelectrical processes in our brain, so.. It's not quite the mystery it used to be anymore. And yes, as far as I am aware, different types of love (to take just one example) correlate to different neural pathways as well, though I'm no qualified biologist and might be asserting more than has been verified yet through tests... There is also a number of proposed explanations as to why we feel a certain way about certain people and the tendencies to feel in particular ways towards particular people, or rather why said feelings and tendencies came to spread throughout the population. Again, not sure if there had been a chance to falsify those theoretical models yet, but surely some of them are at least fully consistent with observations of ourselves and other animals.
To say "science can't explain X" where X is something real is pretty much the same as dismissing X altogether as something fundamentally incomprehensible on any level. Science is the business of explaining stuff, and it is really the only one at that. The only two alternatives are not caring to explain and moving on on the one hand and shrugging it off to what essentially amounts to sorcery on the other; needless to say, neither of those end with an explanation that's actually good for anything.

As I don't doubt there are theoretical models or even a lack of effort to attempt to explain a quantifiable measurement of emotion, there's yet a definitive scientific definition. I'm not even saying there can't be one, or won't be. There are many things in the universe, and I do mean universe (outside our solar system, Galaxy, what have you) and perhaps even on our own planet that science has yet to figure out. Doesn't mean they're not trying, or are not close to it. Chances are, they are. Anyhoo my point is this, just because science can't explain it (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If belief in the Force is delusional, as Khaos states, why then are you here or, better yet, why are you stating on this site of all places that it is delusional?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Khaos wrote: Its not relevant to me.

its not APPEALING to you

it is absolutely RELEVANT to you, as the story of Jonah illustrates, although i admit that my own explanation of it is amateur (which is why i reference academic sources)

it is relevant to you but you dont want to see that because THE IDEA THAT IT IS RELEVANT is not appealing to you - which reminds me of a story about a god named osiris who willfully put himself inside of a coffin as a result of the fact that he refused to acknowledge the reality or relevance of something that was right in front of him - the danger that was posed to him by his brother seth, WHO IS UNDERSTOOD AS A MYTHOLOGICAL SYMBOL OF CHAOS

so its funny (to me) that a guy who calls himself Khaos would promote willful blindness in a discussion so heavily focused on the themes of mythology

in a sense you actually reenact one of the myths whose relevance you deny, BY THE DENIAL OF ITS RELEVANCE lol

its kind of poetic actually

Khaos wrote: As I said, if you need stories to back your moral and ethical dos and donts, fine.

i would like to ask you what "backs" your ethical do's and dont's, and where and how you learned those things, and if you seriously think that you just came to those conclusions all by yourself, without the social foundations which were the source of -- well to start with your existence, and everything which that means or imlies, including of course your ethics lol

and anyway ive explained that the myths dont "back" ethics, they express the realities of different kinds of human behavior

the social patterns exist first, then the myth is developed to articulate the pattern so that civilization doesnt have to keep repeating the same mistakes - or willingly put themselves into coffins lol

but i respect that youre not interested in the discussion, which seems to have moved on anyway

i wouldnt even have posted this but the bit about seth and chaos was too good to pass up

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Khaos wrote: Its not relevant to me.

its not APPEALING to you

it is absolutely RELEVANT to you, as the story of Jonah illustrates, although i admit that my own explanation of it is amateur (which is why i reference academic sources)

it is relevant to you but you dont want to see that because THE IDEA THAT IT IS RELEVANT is not appealing to you - which reminds me of a story about a god named osiris who willfully put himself inside of a coffin as a result of the fact that he refused to acknowledge the reality or relevance of something that was right in front of him - the danger that was posed to him by his brother seth, WHO IS UNDERSTOOD AS A MYTHOLOGICAL SYMBOL OF CHAOS

so its funny (to me) that a guy who calls himself Khaos would promote willful blindness in a discussion so heavily focused on the themes of mythology

in a sense you actually reenact one of the myths whose relevance you deny, BY THE DENIAL OF ITS RELEVANCE lol

its kind of poetic actually

Khaos wrote: As I said, if you need stories to back your moral and ethical dos and donts, fine.

i would like to ask you what "backs" your ethical do's and dont's, and where and how you learned those things, and if you seriously think that you just came to those conclusions all by yourself, without the social foundations which were the source of -- well to start with your existence, and everything which that means or imlies, including of course your ethics lol

and anyway ive explained that the myths dont "back" ethics, they express the realities of different kinds of human behavior

the social patterns exist first, then the myth is developed to articulate the pattern so that civilization doesnt have to keep repeating the same mistakes - or willingly put themselves into coffins lol

but i respect that youre not interested in the discussion, which seems to have moved on anyway

i wouldnt even have posted this but the bit about seth and chaos was too good to pass up

You do know we dont have to agree on this right?

Khaos, is a screen name on a forum. I think you have looked deeper into it than I have.

As I have repeated a couple of times now, if you need stories to back your moral and ethical do's and don'ts, that's fine.

It has no relevance to me, and I have no desire to try convince you otherwise that I dont need, or use them for mine.

You ultimately wont believe me anyway.

I also see that it is important to you, but I have no desire to challenge nor seek to remove that foundation.

I havent that power anyway.

This conversation, which has now been largely one sided, as I have repeated my disinterest in it, is going to the road to nowhere fast.

Here, lets just make it simpler.

Your right, im wrong.

Better? Can we move on?

Again, its not relevant to me, or appealing, or interesting, no matter how many caps you use.

Do you believe in the Force, Khaos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "Force" being...?

"a ubiquitous and metaphysical power that a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the underlying, fundamental nature of the universe."

Source: TotJO Doctrine

BionicPianoMan wrote: As I don't doubt there are theoretical models or even a lack of effort to attempt to explain a quantifiable measurement of emotion, there's yet a definitive scientific definition. I'm not even saying there can't be one, or won't be. There are many things in the universe, and I do mean universe (outside our solar system, Galaxy, what have you) and perhaps even on our own planet that science has yet to figure out. Doesn't mean they're not trying, or are not close to it. Chances are, they are. Anyhoo my point is this, just because science can't explain it (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If belief in the Force is delusional, as Khaos states, why then are you here or, better yet, why are you stating on this site of all places that it is delusional?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, it is your conclusion that one has no business being here if one does not believe in the Force?

I also agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the case of science however, they will seek evidence, in which in regards to the Force, you are comfortable to leave it ambiguous...Why, because the evidence may be to the contrary?

As such it holds no more power than a delusion regardless, as sure, you cannot prove it doesnt exist, but you will accept that no proof is good enough?

Hmm, well, have at it then. It just makes me wonder, that well, what are you doing in regards to Force studies in any capacity if you cannot really verify it as such, or not?

What are you doing here even if you do believe?

I was just saying that emotions are perhaps a poor example of another thing science has no explanation for, because emotions are for the most part explained rather well. So well, in fact, that there are branches of medicine dedicated to them that are fairly successful within that domain.
I can't speak for Khaos, but I really do not see how he said that belief in the Force was delusional, nor am I sure that he'd be qualified to judge so if he did. For all I read he asked you to explain how the existence in question (i.e. of the Force) was, by your standard, anyhow outside of just your own head. At the same time, if he were to state such a thing on a skeptics' or a Mormon board, everybody around would just nod and there wouldn't be anything left to discuss on that issue. If one is going to challenge Jedi beliefs, a Jedi place is the place to do so if there is one.
Now, as for existence, and I have met people on both sides who do not feel that that term is up to discussion, I find that one ought to define what existence even means. For if we do not, we could stand here all day arguing about whether something does exist only because it is observable or whether there even is anything that doesn't exist, if observation is no requirement all of a sudden. We could define existence so that a thing needs not meet any requirements to qualify as existing, but then the label is useless. We could also define existence as a matter of personal revelation or perception if you will, but then objectively some things would be both existing and non-existing and the label would yet again be useless at least as a means of communicating the concept of an actual real property. If on the other hand we define existence in such a way that some intersubjectively testible criteria need apply, the existence in question now becomes a matter of scientific inquiry.
Of course, after we are provided your definition of existence, we would also need a coherent definition of the Force such that we had a way of comparing whether it meets the definition of "something existing", and that is arguably the more complicated definition to find.
This is what makes the Force so similar to gods. Every believer knows on a deeply personal level the mind of their creator, and yet it seems that everybody's creator is as different and unique as the believers themselves - invisible friends, if you will. We can safely dismiss all but one internally consistent subset of them yet we have no means of deciding which one not to dismiss. And thus we reserve our judgement, leaving the burden on the believers to explain to us what makes their beliefs rational ones to hold.
Do I then believe the Force exists? I wouldn't know. You tell me what you mean by the Force, then what you mean by existing, and then maybe, soon or after some thinking, I can tell whether I do believe that it does. And if I don't and you think you have good reasons why we should, perhaps you would share those reasons such that both of us end up with a reasonable belief after all, which ever that is.

BionicPianoMan wrote: "a ubiquitous and metaphysical power that a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the underlying, fundamental nature of the universe."

Source: TotJO Doctrine

Ah, then no, not at all.

There is a lot I do believe in in regards to the fundamental nature of the universe, and as it so happens, there is a branch of science dedicated to it, actually several, but physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy etc. Each with a whole group of subsets, some of which I cannot even begin to fathom, but are actually used to unlock real tangible understanding of the underlying nature of our planet, the people on it, and the universe.