What is the Force MkII

Dragonheart wrote: You're not wrong - the scientific method doesn't begin or end with the tools you're using, and it's the method, not the tools, that makes it science - but the tools available for use are important. The data you can acquire, and its accuracy, is limited by the tools you're using - which is why science often proves itself wrong when new technology for observing and testing phenomena is invented. I think that's what Adder was referring to when they mentioned tools not being able to handle the system being investigated.

At the risk of being overly pedantic, I'm hard pressed to find one instance where "science proved itself wrong" even assuming a colloquial usage of "prove" here. The weakness of Aristotle's model of motion is not in that it is wrong. It accounts for and predicts that rocks will sink to the bottom of the ocean because that is where they belong by the gods' design. It predicts that anything in motion will come to rest because of that same telos imposing it a will to rest. The advantage Newton's mechanics have over Aristotle's is that the predictions it makes are more specific. The planet's aren't just roaming the skies "as is their purpose", but they follow patterns Newton predicts. It makes predictions that make his model more useful, and more falsifiable. A model picturing the earth as flat is not wrong either. Aforementioned Galilei assumed it, despite "knowing better", because for his purposes it was unimportant. Whether you throw a ball and describe it's flight path as a parabola or building a house, trying to account for the slight curvature on such miniscule scales would cost too much in computation for no visible gain in accuracy.
Of course I am not arguing that the advent of more sophisticated technologies that allow us to resolve ever finer images doesn't matter, but a theory is not wrong for failing outside of its scope. And, as you say, the method doesn't depend on that anyway.

It's the problem of "hard science" (ie, the physical sciences), which can be objectively proven as fact, versus "soft science" (ie, psychology, sociology, etc) which can sometimes be objectively proven but often has to be taken on the word of the people who are the subjects of the experiments/studies/surveys because it's based on their subjective experiences of the world. (Often those subjective experiences are exactly what's being studied, for that matter, so there's no real way to objectively "prove" those experiences are happening - at least, not within the bounds of current technology and how much we can look at what's happening in a person's brain.)

I wholeheartedly disagree. There is science and then there are disciplines that aren't any. If evidence is of concern, if it is about predicting observations, that alone settles it. History is as much a science as chemistry, psychology as much physics, and though I understand that gathering representative data sets is more difficult in some subjects than it is in others, and sympathize with those that elected to pursue careers in them and their plight, I do not believe that anyone stands to benefit from lowering standards and expectations because of it. If one's data does not warrant a strong conclusion, I think it would be nothing shy of dishonest to insist on one confidently anyway. It is frankly a shame that in some of those "soft sciences" so many researchers are ever at the risk of losing funding for not announcing quite sensational enough "findings", effectively punished for daring to be humble and honest... Perhaps with the advent of neuroscientific tools we may not need to hear these dying pains much longer.

ren wrote: Jediism is named, not assembled from, a sci-fi franchise. There's more Adi shankara in us than star wars.

Do advocates of the religion call themselves Jedi and Jedi Knights? Do they believe a mystical energy field called The Force exists as described by the Star Wars movies? Are light sabers and Jedi robes (Creations of Star Wars) used as common symbols and representations of this religion? Is there a Sci Fi movie franchise that existed before the religion that came up with these concepts? i.e. the myth existed before the religion. Is there any official doctrine that all Jedi accept that says it is more Adi shankara than Star Wars? Do advocates of this religion of Jediism commonly use quotes and examples from the Star Wars Franchise in the exploration and explanation of their religion? (I never see a quote from Hinduism used, and even it if was, it would just make it a sect of Hindu Religion). Isnt the primary salutation of this religion "May the Force be With You"? (A phrase created in the first Star Wars movie)

You can call a duck a pig but it does not make it a pig.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: For I like to think that when it comes to Jedi, they foster and exercise a connection to something that cannot be fully known called the Force and as such examine the relationships between brain function and behavior, and the environment and behavior, applying what they learn to illuminate our understanding and improve the world around us.

From this quote I see you has viewing the Jedi in the infancy of their understanding of this thing you have labeled as “The Force. However you have already committed a fatal flaw in your assessment that will doom you to mediocracy. You have begged the question. In other words you have come to a preconceived conclusion about a phenomena and then you set out to prove your conclusion. This is not the way science is done nor is it the way philosophy is done.

Not necessarily. Using concepts from fiction to work with experience is not the same as using concepts from fiction to expect experience. A fictional construct based purely in fiction is just fiction. But an experiential path modeled using fictional concepts to engineer progress is not fictional. Which is why I didn''t arrive at Jediism until after about 18 years of study in Taoism and Vajrayana et al

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The psychology of the human condition will also function in this very same way. There are many things we don’t know about human consciousness. But can we say we will never know what it is and how it works. No we can’t. All we can do is take the available data and draw hypothesis and then test those over and over until theories emerge. It may be a never ending process, it is probably a never ending process, but it is definitely not a process that we can ever claim has a limit.

Which is what I'm saying Jediism is IMO, a worldview... not a science. But the scientific method has importance and practical import in all parts of living (ie rationality) and even more so when dealing with exploring new concepts. So clinging to scientific fact as a requirement for something to be useful seems a clear category mistake, and especially so to something that is defined as being at least in part outside of science. It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Anyway, that was my points in my posts. That we cannot fully know the Force as something because that would require being outside of it to observe its entirety and to have some context to define it as a standalone system - so instead we define it by our interaction with what suppose it best is in our lives. The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about.... its just the data is subjective experience rather then objective measurement. Though there would be overlap where the efforts can incorporate objective measurement (as much as possible!), and I think that leads people to explore how an overlap of subjective experience might impact objective reality (leading to all sorts of unusual ideas and hypothesis). But the focus IMO is not the alignment to objective reality, but the skills in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections. The more the merrier but if they are irrational or uneffective then it would be counter-productive to incorporate or propagate them... though discussion is often the best manner to bash these things around a bit (if the environment is a supportive one, otherwise people simply will do it elsewhere or do something more easy like conflict and socializing). The 3 Tenets are focus, knowledge and wisdom after all... not just knowledge.

Adder wrote: Which is what I'm saying Jediism is IMO, a worldview... not a science. But the scientific method has importance and practical import in all parts of living (ie rationality) and even more so when dealing with exploring new concepts. So clinging to scientific fact as a requirement for something to be useful seems a clear category mistake, and especially so to something that is defined as being at least in part outside of science.

You say "so", but... how so?

It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Yea, I'm glad nobody is saying any such nonsense. That would be almost as silly as to say it be an important part of a playwright's job to sew the costumes for their play's performance.

The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about.... its just the data is subjective experience rather then objective measurement.

Oh, so it's the kind of data that rather than stand up to any scrutiny is deliberately and in advance protected from any, i.e. "data" that is functionally equivalent to no data at all...

But the focus IMO is not the alignment to objective reality, but the skills in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections. The more the merrier but if they are irrational or uneffective then it would be counter-productive to incorporate or propagate them... though discussion is often the best manner to bash these things around a bit (if the environment is a supportive one, otherwise people simply will do it elsewhere or do something more easy like conflict and socializing). The 3 Tenets are focus, knowledge and wisdom after all... not just knowledge.

What does "the skill in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections" mean exactly, if it is not a skill one can demonstrate any kind of proficiency in? Like, I appreciate I'm sounding like some kind of closed-minded zealot here, but how am I to sound if this is what we're dealing with? I for one am happy to reject the notion that "objective reality" is a meaningful expression in its own right, but I have yet to come to understand what on earth utility means in the context of things explicitly "outside of" or at any rate "beyond" reality? It is like insisting that non-reality is still real (and often enough that reality itself isn't, ironically - though this may not be addressing you particularly, Adder, I'm just using your post as a jumping off point).

The three tenets speak of focus and wisdom, too, sure... (the code doesn't). Meanwhile, in recent years I have seen far more of the "let go of your thinking" kind of attitude (if I may take some hyperbole), a spirit of un-focus, and un-knowledge, in my humble assessment, than I have teachings of the tenets. The unwise "live in the now" mantra was the central message of an entire book that (at least) used to be part of the IP. Through focus I can persevere, through knowledge - progress, through wisdom - succeed. And through woo-woo I can skip all of the effort involved in any of that and instead move straight on to feeling like I am above such primitive human concerns...

I dunno if people actually want to read us go backwards and forewards, so an alternative is to take to private message if you need a much higher degree of interaction I think. But I'll persist until people tell me to STFU :silly:

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: Which is what I'm saying Jediism is IMO, a worldview... not a science. But the scientific method has importance and practical import in all parts of living (ie rationality) and even more so when dealing with exploring new concepts. So clinging to scientific fact as a requirement for something to be useful seems a clear category mistake, and especially so to something that is defined as being at least in part outside of science.

You say "so", but... how so?

To bounce off the definition I used in an earlier post about what worldview means, consider what 'cognitive orientation' might mean to you. To me its the constructs of meaning we use to contextualize phenomena, and in particular in this context to be in a productive manner over an unproductive manner. Like I said, the thoughts in thinking viewed as how we think, rather then what we think. I would go as far as to say its a type of self-psychology, hence inviting the reader to consider the scope of what psychology does and how another form of it might exist when being used by the individual for net benefit.

Gisteron wrote:

It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Yea, I'm glad nobody is saying any such nonsense. That would be almost as silly as to say it be an important part of a playwright's job to sew the costumes for their play's performance.

Why do you say that? AFAIK psychologists do a lot of work in the subjective realm of patients to work with their way of thinking to engineer better outcomes. It's not 'hard science' yet its important to the role of a psychologist. Unless your saying psychologists not doing hard science are not real psychologits!!? I'd rather say it was that psychology encompasses various disciplines and techniques, some hard science and some so soft they probably are not fairly called science. Don't ask me to write an critical examination of psychological methods though, for if your interested in examples a web search should be replete, if your that interested.

Gisteron wrote:

The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about.... its just the data is subjective experience rather then objective measurement.

Oh, so it's the kind of data that rather than stand up to any scrutiny is deliberately and in advance protected from any, i.e. "data" that is functionally equivalent to no data at all...

Not at all. How you'd get that conclusion from what I said? If anything it should imply it is a process of subjective mind rather then a state of objective reality - but I'm always curious to how other people genuinely see things differently, so feel free to elaborate your chain of thought to that conclusion.

Gisteron wrote:

But the focus IMO is not the alignment to objective reality, but the skills in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections. The more the merrier but if they are irrational or uneffective then it would be counter-productive to incorporate or propagate them... though discussion is often the best manner to bash these things around a bit (if the environment is a supportive one, otherwise people simply will do it elsewhere or do something more easy like conflict and socializing). The 3 Tenets are focus, knowledge and wisdom after all... not just knowledge.

What does "the skill in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections" mean exactly, if it is not a skill one can demonstrate any kind of proficiency in? Like, I appreciate I'm sounding like some kind of closed-minded zealot here, but how am I to sound if this is what we're dealing with? I for one am happy to reject the notion that "objective reality" is a meaningful expression in its own right, but I have yet to come to understand what on earth utility means in the context of things explicitly "outside of" or at any rate "beyond" reality? It is like insisting that non-reality is still real (and often enough that reality itself isn't, ironically - though this may not be addressing you particularly, Adder, I'm just using your post as a jumping off point).

Goes back to the 'worldview' basis of my point. A person can manage what they think, which I would say alters how we think to a large extent. So the particular phrase I used of exploring and developing is about working up conceptual structures which have the best effect.
To clarify, IMO subjective reality is that experience which is not aligned to objective reality - its a categorization to associate awareness (which is entirely within the subjective realm seemingly) to a theorized objective reality (tho so real it hurts). The purpose of the distinction between the two is because they afford different types of experiences. And so, efforts to improve ones experience of life and living means engineering those experiences can benefit from different approaches to those two 'operating areas' of awareness.
Like how you can fly when your dreaming doesn't work when your awake!!
So the effort to question is not what is objective reality, but rather accepting its all subjective and using the best tools for the appropriate category/domain/realm of either subjective or objective mental process. An objective mental process would be all about best quality information being tested critically and updated for relevance to applicability. A subjective mental process would be whatever your mind can conjure up with your body in its environment to feel at levels approaching or exceeding that which one might be familiar with in objective realty. When done so for positive outcomes, its beneficial. When that is also worth the effort, its rewarding.

Gisteron wrote: The three tenets speak of focus and wisdom, too, sure... (the code doesn't). Meanwhile, in recent years I have seen far more of the "let go of your thinking" kind of attitude (if I may take some hyperbole), a spirit of un-focus, and un-knowledge, in my humble assessment, than I have teachings of the tenets. The unwise "live in the now" mantra was the central message of an entire book that (at least) used to be part of the IP. Through focus I can persevere, through knowledge - progress, through wisdom - succeed. And through woo-woo I can skip all of the effort involved in any of that and instead move straight on to feeling like I am above such primitive human concerns...

Yea I agree with you. To me that is a 'part'' of a toolkit to work with the subjective mind and most definitely not an end-state goal. People like Krishnamurti influenced the likes of Watts, Tolle etc and they all focused on that small part IMO of the bigger practise..... whether its all they learnt, made progress with, or actually thought the audience was only ready to handle that much properly. A bit like people thinking Yoga is doing stretches from the catalogue of Asanas. Other 'parts' can include working with complex mental process and investigation/examination/thinking, depending on which schools one looks to.
So what part is it... I'd say its part of the early purification and connection phase to deeper levels of experience, ie the reset. If you watch this video its like when they wipe the slate clean to 'start again'. Though to be fair its not just a preparatory tool, but also a capability of equanimity to approach complexity - for we are all dealing with the efficient use of limited resources and need to be a bit strategic with our efforts (like a lot, given how short life is). As such I'd define it as having an important place in both finding ones connection to the Force, and also remaining connected to the Force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32vlOgN_3QQ

What do the other parts do, work to integrate the various faculties of mind and body to that effect, being much more confronting but rewarding... integrating the activation of visual circuits for visuals, auditory circuits for sound, energy allocations for supports, skin for spatial mapping, but its the integration of all those various types of things which create the over-arching suite of dynamic capability. Of course whether a person wants to believe that is possible or worth the effort is up to them, but not believing is no reason to criticize others for believing and like me, knowing, its possible. Whether its worth it is another question, and one left to the individual. Is it rewarding for others, only insofar as they benefit second hand from the practitioner I guess. Do the subjective tools influence the objective reality beyond normality/scientific truth, probably not IMO but its fun to explore boundaries.

Perhaps I'm just profoundly uneducated in the subject, because I understood almost nothing of that. To pick a paragraph, when I read

To clarify, IMO subjective reality is that experience which is not aligned to objective reality - its a categorization to associate awareness (which is entirely within the subjective realm seemingly) to a theorized objective reality (tho so real it hurts). The purpose of the distinction between the two is because they afford different types of experiences. And so, efforts to improve ones experience of life and living means engineering those experiences can benefit from different approaches to those two 'operating areas' of awareness.

I understand that it is intended "to clarify", but to me it does nothing of the sort. I have no idea what the alignment of an experience means, or what it is supposed to be a categorization of (seems like it is a word employed for its length and beauty moreso than its appropriateness for what ever message it is supposed to help convey), or what association between awareness and a theorized objective reality would be. I for one am tempted at this point to question what this "theorized objective reality" is supposed to be also, since I had skipped over that need earlier, but clearly it seems to be a term we want to keep using and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it. Apparently it is an "operating area of awareness", except it is helpful to distinguish it from just regular old "awareness" because that may help improve experience which I presume includes both subjective reality and that which isn't? The more I try to understand it, the less sense this word salad makes to me. Only by shutting off my mental faculties entirely and letting the salad flow around me moving nothing inside me can it pass me in peace. I don't want to not listen. This is not how conversations work, nor learning or growing, but this seems to be the sum total MO some of the time here...
Anyway, on to something I actually can somewhat respond to:

Adder wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Yea, I'm glad nobody is saying any such nonsense. That would be almost as silly as to say it be an important part of a playwright's job to sew the costumes for their play's performance.

Why do you say that? AFAIK psychologists do a lot of work in the subjective realm of patients to work with their way of thinking to engineer better outcomes. It's not 'hard science' yet its important to the role of a psychologist. Unless your saying psychologists not doing hard science are not real psychologits!!? I'd rather say it was that psychology encompasses various disciplines and techniques, some hard science and some so soft they probably are not fairly called science. Don't ask me to write an critical examination of psychological methods though, for if your interested in examples a web search should be replete, if your that interested.

I see no meaningful distinction between "hard" and "soft" as you introduced them earlier and I explained why I do not most recently in post #335524 . I also see no reason why it has relevancy here. Counseling isn't "soft science", it is rather no science at all because it does not seek to build predictive models. It is as much a non-science as sewing costumes is non-writing. Psychology, on the other hand, is a scientific discipline. Not "soft science", nor "hard science" just "science" because it is about building models to account for and predict observations and that is the only relevant criterion for the distinction. I don't know what fraction of psychologists are counselors, I imagine psychiatrists doing much more of that seeing as treating patients is their entire job, but I wouldn't know. My point is that we need to distinguish between the research and the application. I never said that one is less of an architect for cutting wood planks, I'm just saying that it is not (a necessary) part of the job. One is no less a psychologist for studying subjects whilst offering no psychiatric treatment psychiatrists exist to provide, just like one is no less an architect for designing buildings whilst not laying down any bricks.

Adder wrote: The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about....

This right here is your basic failing. How can you make a presupposition about something you know nothing about and then enact data processing that only leads you do that conclusion? This is wrong and i don't care if your scientifically minded or not, this is not the way to truly learn anything about reality, subjective or objective.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about....

This right here is your basic failing. How can you make a presupposition about something you know nothing about and then enact data processing that only leads you do that conclusion? This is wrong and i don't care if your scientifically minded or not, this is not the way to truly learn anything about reality, subjective or objective.

There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Arisaig wrote:
There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Just to be perfectly upfront and honest here, I see this comment as nothing more than attempt to derail this thread and single me out and antagonize me. you see, there is a better way to say what you have said here as well. So take your own medicine and get back on subject and leave me alone please. Thanks

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Just to be perfectly upfront and honest here, I see this comment as nothing more than attempt to derail this thread and single me out and antagonize me. you see, there is a better way to say what you have said here as well. So take your own medicine and get back on subject and leave me alone please. Thanks

I apologise.Still, we know there is two ways of handling what was said.

Arisaig wrote: There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Though I understand the sentiment behind wanting to maintain a friendly environment, sometimes the "in your face" approach can be very useful in getting a direct response, suppressing the tendency to dance around issues. Whether the approach itself is effective or not and at what cost, that is a different matter.

Manu wrote:

Arisaig wrote: There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Though I understand the sentiment behind wanting to maintain a friendly environment, sometimes the "in your face" approach can be very useful in getting a direct response, suppressing the tendency to dance around issues. Whether the approach itself is effective or not and at what cost, that is a different matter.

There is a way to be 'in your face' without resorting to basically calling the other person dangerously stupid. Discussion will happen with or without this approach, and the aforementioned approach borders on an attack.

Arisaig wrote:

Manu wrote:

Arisaig wrote: There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Though I understand the sentiment behind wanting to maintain a friendly environment, sometimes the "in your face" approach can be very useful in getting a direct response, suppressing the tendency to dance around issues. Whether the approach itself is effective or not and at what cost, that is a different matter.

There is a way to be 'in your face' without resorting to basically calling the other person dangerously stupid. Discussion will happen with or without this approach, and the aforementioned approach borders on an attack.

uhh what? You have an incredible bias towards me and it is getting in the way of your objectivity. To actually jump to this conclusion that i called him stupid is.. well.. fill in your own blanks here. I called him wrong in his approach to a subject, not stupid.

Arisaig wrote:

Manu wrote:

Arisaig wrote: There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Though I understand the sentiment behind wanting to maintain a friendly environment, sometimes the "in your face" approach can be very useful in getting a direct response, suppressing the tendency to dance around issues. Whether the approach itself is effective or not and at what cost, that is a different matter.

There is a way to be 'in your face' without resorting to basically calling the other person dangerously stupid. Discussion will happen with or without this approach, and the aforementioned approach borders on an attack.

"Who is the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool who follows?" - Obi-wan Kenobi

I think it becomes quite evident when someone is making a fool of themselves, each word posted here makes an impression in everyone's mind. When others step in to engage, however, they just fuel it further, however. IF someone feels that there is indeed an attack, they can report it, of course. Otherwise, everyone will (and should) be entitled to form their own subjective opinion regarding the "elegance" or "poise" of each poster.

As someone who likes to step in proactively to help, it is commendable that you would want to protect others from possible attacks, but ultimately it just throws a wrench in the conversation machine, and turns the conversation into something entirely different (talking about talking), like we are right now.

To take a step back for a moment – let’s look at the question: What is the Force?

We can attempt to answer the question in philosophical terms, scientific terms, experiential terms and even in narrative terms. Even though this is far from an exhaustive list it should be self-evident that attempting a scientific analysis of a philosophical answer, or a philosophical analysis of an experiential answer, is unlikely to be successful.

Stories (and mythology in general) are not meant to be taken literally – they have the power to reveal a different level of truth than, say, science can. Experientially, one of the strongest ways in which the Force can be felt is through the way in which people interact with each other. When an interaction is stimulated by fear (from which anger, hate, suffering and selfishness arise) we can say that is evidence of the dark side of The Force. When an interaction is based on love (from which compassion, charity, generosity and peace arise) we can say that is light side of The Force.

It’s not possible to adequately measure fear or love, but these are two of the most powerful forces in the world. They exist – and they have real world consequences. Furthermore they only exist because Life exists. Life only exists because our part of the multiverse happens to be conducive for it (the strengths of the fundamental forces, elemental diversity, matter in general etc). One doesn’t need to be a space wizard to see this.

TOTJO is a church. We worship (meaning the feeling / expression of adoration for) The Force and through meditation (and/or mindfulness) look to build a conscious connection with these ‘forces’. With practice it doesn’t take too long to develop a sense for when words, actions, and attitudes are coming from a ‘place’ of love, or fear. With more practice (and focus) one can develop the skill to actively choose which route to take at any given time, irrespective of the circumstances.

This is the real power of The Force and the associated skills are what we might develop as aspiring Jedi.

Loudzoo wrote: It’s not possible to adequately measure fear or love, ...

Sure it is.

... but these are two of the most powerful forces in the world.

No, they are not. They are strong enough effects that we can "adequately measure" them for sure, and they are arguably some of our strongest motivators, but they will do precious little about the rapidly approaching ground of anyone falling of a hundred yard high cliff and the electromagnetic force that will decelerate them in what we commonly call the impact.

They exist – and they have real world consequences.

Yes. That's why I don't understand how they can possibly be "not possible to adequately measure". They have consequences. We can tell the difference between events unfolding around subjects with them from those without. How is that not a measurement, or at any rate not an adequate one? What more would anyone expect?

Life only exists because our part of the multiverse happens to be conducive for it (the strengths of the fundamental forces, elemental diversity, matter in general etc).

I'll do a small nitpick at this one, if I may. We don't know just what it takes for life as we know it to emerge. Structures of arbitrary complexity naturally arise in almost any system that operates under any kind of constraints. For instance, in this Nature publication from just over two years ago , a simulation of identical particles spawned cell- and spore-like structures because of nothing but one simple motion law. They don't meet all seven criteria to qualify as life by our biological definition, but then we are talking about an extremely simple system, and yet already it meets several criteria. At this point I'd be surprised to find a possible universe configuration that can be spoken of as dynamic at all that wouldn't generate something a lot like what we call life, frankly.

Ok - what is the agreed scale of love (or fear) and how is it measured? Skin conductance, heart rate, self disclosure, might all be ways but they hardly tell the whole story!

These emotions can’t be adequately measured to the point where we could measure them cumulatively across time and across whole populations with any kind of accuracy or precision.

Can we ever know whether there is more love or fear in the world? I doubt it . . . I’m not even sure that question makes sense. These emotions don’t always manifest as actions in the world. In any case we can disagree on this measurability problem. It doesn’t change the fact that fear and love are massively powerful forces in the world.

Fundamental physical forces are powerful - nobody is disputing that. Gravity has the power to destroy life on this planet. So does fear. It’s a guess, but I’d bet more human lives were lost in the 20th Century as a result of fear manifesting as war and genocide than from people falling-off cliffs (or any other high places).

Biology creates new life - but so does love. My children wouldn’t exist without the love that my wife and I share.

I’m not sure what you’re nitpicking with that research. Life as we know it needs gravity of a certain strength (for stars to form) so that the elements necessary for life as we know it can be forged. I’m sure you’re familiar with the fine tuned universe theory - but I’m not going anything like that far! Again, I’d be willing to bet that emotional life is not possible if only hydrogen and helium (and a trace of lithium) existed as would be the case without stars (unless we re-awaken that thread from a few years ago when we discussed whether stars are alive or not )

Loudzoo wrote: Fundamental physical forces are powerful - nobody is disputing that. Gravity has the power to destroy life on this planet. So does fear. It’s a guess, but I’d bet more human lives were lost in the 20th Century as a result of fear manifesting as war and genocide than from people falling-off cliffs (or any other high places).

Eh, maybe. Something tells me the majority of deaths in the 20th century occurred of disease and age-related bodily complications like cancer and heart failures. A few will have no doubt died from accidents, and then there was a whole bunch of people who were killed with poison or with bullets. Maybe a few elderly folk died from fear witnessing the horrors around them making their hearts fail.
See, I'm not saying that fear played no role in motivating people do the atrocities they commited. I wouldn't say it was a major role most of the time, but it is a powerful motivator regardless. The question is how far one is willing to trace the chain of events. One can say that the brain processes ceased due to a critical amount of cells being destroyed and blood vessels burst to damage further ones. One can say that all of that was a bullet that had penetrated the skull. One can say that the real cause of death was the gun that had fired the bullet. Or the finger that pulled the trigger. Or the person that elected to have their finger pull it. Or the commander that had ordered the killing and the feeling of duty because of the oaths the commander and the shooter took. It could be some leader further up or the goals they pursued, or the ideology they subscribed to or the fear that informed both of those things. It could be that supreme leader's childhood trauma, or a tendency for lunacy in their genes, or a spirit of disdain for the perceived sub-human in the immediate culture they grew up in. It could be a book they read or a book they wrote. It could be the history of their nation, or the history of their species. An instinct perhaps, or the finitude of resources. You see how far fetched this can get so quickly. It is an intuitive illustration of why causality makes no sense to begin with. Are all these things powerful forces competing to determine the outcome of any chain of events? Few people survive bullets in their heads. I think far more survive fear in their hearts, or even fear in everyone else's.

Life as we know it needs gravity of a certain strength (for stars to form) so that the elements necessary for life as we know it can be forged.

Says who? Which of the defining criteria of life necessitates a diversity of elements?

Again, I’d be willing to bet that emotional life is not possible if only hydrogen and helium (and a trace of lithium) existed as would be the case without stars...

Why, though? What about emotional life (assuming we have done enough to establish what that means) requires stars to be a thing?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about....

This right here is your basic failing. How can you make a presupposition about something you know nothing about and then enact data processing that only leads you do that conclusion? This is wrong and i don't care if your scientifically minded or not, this is not the way to truly learn anything about reality, subjective or objective.

About what though, are you still thinking I'm talking about measuring objective reality? Because if you stay in your own argument unrelated to mine then you'll be able to defend it from no-one for as long as you like.... but it will remain unrelated to my post. I'm talking about the process of orientating thought within the experience of awareness. It's the same mechanism you mention but connected to the problems of working without having access to the bigger picture - one which we both cannot know because the Force is defined as such but also because our sensors are limited and filtered anyway.

Gisteron wrote:

Loudzoo wrote: Fundamental physical forces are powerful - nobody is disputing that. Gravity has the power to destroy life on this planet. So does fear. It’s a guess, but I’d bet more human lives were lost in the 20th Century as a result of fear manifesting as war and genocide than from people falling-off cliffs (or any other high places).

Eh, maybe. Something tells me the majority of deaths in the 20th century occurred of disease and age-related bodily complications like cancer and heart failures. A few will have no doubt died from accidents, and then there was a whole bunch of people who were killed with poison or with bullets. Maybe a few elderly folk died from fear witnessing the horrors around them making their hearts fail.
See, I'm not saying that fear played no role in motivating people do the atrocities they commited. I wouldn't say it was a major role most of the time, but it is a powerful motivator regardless. The question is how far one is willing to trace the chain of events. One can say that the brain processes ceased due to a critical amount of cells being destroyed and blood vessels burst to damage further ones. One can say that all of that was a bullet that had penetrated the skull. One can say that the real cause of death was the gun that had fired the bullet. Or the finger that pulled the trigger. Or the person that elected to have their finger pull it. Or the commander that had ordered the killing and the feeling of duty because of the oaths the commander and the shooter took. It could be some leader further up or the goals they pursued, or the ideology they subscribed to or the fear that informed both of those things. It could be that supreme leader's childhood trauma, or a tendency for lunacy in their genes, or a spirit of disdain for the perceived sub-human in the immediate culture they grew up in. It could be a book they read or a book they wrote. It could be the history of their nation, or the history of their species. An instinct perhaps, or the finitude of resources. You see how far fetched this can get so quickly. It is an intuitive illustration of why causality makes no sense to begin with. Are all these things powerful forces competing to determine the outcome of any chain of events? Few people survive bullets in their heads. I think far more survive fear in their hearts, or even fear in everyone else's.

Life as we know it needs gravity of a certain strength (for stars to form) so that the elements necessary for life as we know it can be forged.

Says who? Which of the defining criteria of life necessitates a diversity of elements?

Again, I’d be willing to bet that emotional life is not possible if only hydrogen and helium (and a trace of lithium) existed as would be the case without stars...

Why, though? What about emotional life (assuming we have done enough to establish what that means) requires stars to be a thing?

All the Life we know of is carbon based. Other options are available but we don't see evidence for them. To get carbon you need stars. I wouldn't rule anything out, but based on the evidence in front of us, one needs elements heavier than lithium to form complex Life capable of emotions such as love or fear. I don't think that is an unreasonable statement but if its too contentious we could postulate another argument - say that Life needs an energy source. Our energy comes from nuclear fusion in the sun and to a lesser extent, nuclear fission in the earth's core. These also rely on gravity (and other fundamental forces) to operate too.

In any case, we both seem to agree that fear and love are powerful motivations. These motivations don't exist separate from Life. Life as we know it, needs certain fundamental parameters to be in place (e.g. matter, and sufficient time to evolve). I suspect you may not like the concept but one can accurately say that "emotions are an epiphenomenon of matter and time".

I revere the Force because I respect these forces. Without them I wouldn't exist, and neither would those I love. Collectively, all these forces constitute what I refer to as The Force. Learning to live with them, even harness them, is my human project.