What is the Force

Ok lets take your very definition. It is an "energy field" created by all living things. We can conclude two things from this. 1. Only living things, not all things, are involved in this process. 2. Some sort of energy force or field is created as a result that is separate from those living things. Connected maybe but still a separate thing. The electromagnetic spectrum is also an "energy field" but it is not all things. Somehow not explained it binds the universe together. No different than our other forces of nature such as the electromagnetic spectrum, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravitation. So where is this 5th force and how does it bind the galaxy together? I can show you mathematical proofs of the other fields. Where is your proof of this Force you speak of? And why do you think it is consistent for someone to say it is all things where you yourself have clearly defined it as NOT all things?

There we go! A constructive answer!

Kyrin, you're so dang smart, honestly. You do know your stuff. Why do you settle for not answering when you can give such a complete response like that? One that furthers the conversation, brings forth a solid debate, et cetera.

As for proof, there is none that I, or anyone (yet) can provide. Guess that's why its Jediism, and not just Jedi for many here.

I believe that at the time Lucas was only just coming up with the first and most basic idea of the Force for the characters, and seemed as though he was just trying to convert the idea of Wizards using mana to the sci-fi realm for his Jedi. It's less similar or involved than what we are converting it to in the real world.

Condescending attitudes aside, the point of the question was to address the differentiation between “The Force is everything” and “The Force is an energy field”. The latter implies that it is separate from at least something else in the universe to require the description of an energy field.

Arisaig wrote: As for proof, there is none that I, or anyone (yet) can provide. Guess that's why its Jediism, and not just Jedi for many here.[/color]

Agreed. So considering this lack of evidence of any attri ute we can objectively assign to it, how can we, any if us, conclude it is an energy field, or is created by all living things or even IS all things?

And yet we all agree there is some aspect of reality we feel as this force. So let's go deeper, beyond unprovable properties and see if we can discover some truth about this experience. That's what I'm asking and that's what I'm proposing. That the force is not a thing, because we cant define it as a thing. It is action, experience, the act of being alive I think at it's most basic level and that entails our experience of connection even if we cant show the reality of that connection.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
How is that inconsistent? Being all things, and an energy field? Isn't that how it was first described?

For reference:

"It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." -- Obi-Wan Kenobi: a New Hope

You do realize that Obi-Wan was a fictional character right? from a science fiction movie? I hardly think that qualifies as a valid reference in this discussion. He also flew around and moved objects with his mind. Are we to now also consider that as valid evidence for telekinesis?

WHAAA? I had no idea!

smh.

Never said anything about telekinesis. Only the Force.

EDIT: Nice dodge of the question to throw a jab...

Ok lets take your very definition. It is an "energy field" created by all living things. We can conclude two things from this. 1. Only living things, not all things, are involved in this process. 2. Some sort of energy force or field is created as a result that is separate from those living things. Connected maybe but still a separate thing. The electromagnetic spectrum is also an "energy field" but it is not all things. Somehow not explained it binds the universe together. No different than our other forces of nature such as the electromagnetic spectrum, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravitation. So where is this 5th force and how does it bind the galaxy together? I can show you mathematical proofs of the other fields. Where is your proof of this Force you speak of? And why do you think it is consistent for someone to say it is all things where you yourself have clearly defined it as NOT all things?

Is this your definition or are you trying to explain some one else’s definition?

It's kind of like discussing if there is proof of the existence of the number 2.

I can write a the number 2 but that's just a symbol that represents the idea of the number 2. I could place two pencils on a desk. But those are just a couple of pencils. They are also not the number 2.

So how exactly do we get down to the bottom of knowing proof of the number 2?

Arisaig wrote:

Ok lets take your very definition. It is an "energy field" created by all living things. We can conclude two things from this. 1. Only living things, not all things, are involved in this process. 2. Some sort of energy force or field is created as a result that is separate from those living things. Connected maybe but still a separate thing. The electromagnetic spectrum is also an "energy field" but it is not all things. Somehow not explained it binds the universe together. No different than our other forces of nature such as the electromagnetic spectrum, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravitation. So where is this 5th force and how does it bind the galaxy together? I can show you mathematical proofs of the other fields. Where is your proof of this Force you speak of? And why do you think it is consistent for someone to say it is all things where you yourself have clearly defined it as NOT all things?

There we go! A constructive answer!

Kyrin, you're so dang smart, honestly. You do know your stuff. Why do you settle for not answering when you can give such a complete response like that? One that furthers the conversation, brings forth a solid debate, et cetera.

As for proof, there is none that I, or anyone (yet) can provide. Guess that's why its Jediism, and not just Jedi for many here.

This is certainly a good answer. I'd like to complicate it though, if I can.

When we say living things, what do we mean? If we're saying this because of Lucas canon then how is it that stones and ships could be levitated?

This may sound completely off the wall to some but I don't view life itself as something binary. What we now determine to be "alive" is relative to our own life. The closer something is to us the more we validate its state of being... alive.

Animals are obviously alive but are plants as alive as people and animals?

What makes plants alive?

Does life mean that it can think or feel?

All these things evolve from earlier less defined states.

I would argue the planet itself is a live and has living things inside it the same way we are alive and having living microbial life inside us.

And if I'm alive are my skin cells equally alive? Are my nails? my hair? my bones? If the planet is alive what about the trees and rocks and dirt?

If we are separating things in our definitions... but we are looking at different parts of the same thing...

Then is there anyway to say that everything has or is a product of life and therefore the Force is all encompassing even though it is or is related to life?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Is this your definition or are you trying to explain some one else’s definition?

I'm not sure why you are asking this? I have been refining not a definition at all but a commonly agreed upon underlying attribute that we can all agree upon in which we can all build individual definitions from.

A phenomenological art probably... affording the engineering of experience and consciousness for effect.

ZealotX wrote: This may sound completely off the wall to some but I don't view life itself as something binary. What we now determine to be "alive" is relative to our own life. The closer something is to us the more we validate its state of being... alive.

Animals are obviously alive but are plants as alive as people and animals?

At the risk of repeating what may well have been said before, there are criteria that we use to tell living things from non-living ones. If something fulfills them all, then we call it a life form, and if it doesn't, we do not. Whether life-ness, unlike some other artificially imposed filter like green-ness is somehow inherent to things is an open question to much of the same extent to which it is an uninteresting one. We are, for now, stuck being around and conversing with each other. Whether the universe itself would think in any of the ways we have to were we not around is really neither answerable nor important until we have some means to interact with it without being around ourselves - provided that is not itself a contradiction.
Plants are alive by the same criteria by which animals are. If the latter is ambiguous, then so must be the former. Similarity to our own makeup is not an explicit criterion for life.

Does life mean that it can think or feel?

No. There is a subset of the set of all living things that can think or feel. Being alive is not sufficient. However, until we can conclusively shown that nothing other than living things can think or feel, we cannot assert that it is necessary either. This may depend on what we mean by thinking and feeling also.

I would argue the planet itself is a live and has living things inside it the same way we are alive and having living microbial life inside us.

Why? The planet does not reproduce, it does not metabolize, it does not have any mechanisms by which it would maintain homoeostasis, and it is very debatable to which extent it reacts to stimuli. Inside it is mostly molten rock with a tiny volume concentrated on the surface where every life form we had the pleasure to classify ever lived. A new definition by which the planet could be qualified as alive would render pretty much everything else alive also and in that way make "alive" a meaningless term.

And if I'm alive are my skin cells equally alive? Are my nails? my hair? my bones?

Yes, they are. Not because you are alive, but because they each individually match our definition of life.

If the planet is alive what about the trees and rocks and dirt?

Trees are, rocks and dirt are not. Again, not because the planet is or isn't (it isn't), but because trees fulfill the criteria and rocks do not.