A question of The Force.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Which makes me kind of sad for Kyrin.. skepticism is good in moderation. However, she's outright dismissive.. and belligerently so.. but her approach, rebuttal, and general presumption of the intellectual high ground makes me think she's done more ego building than self-mastery.. but, like a mule at a millstone. When she finally stops and look at herself she'll see just how far she's come..

Do not feel sad for me. Skepticism only works not in moderation but when applied universally. Dismission is a hallmark of skepticism. Show me something impressive based on evidence and I will pay attention. Fail to do this and i will dismiss you. You say well you dont know how this works... nice assertion... so either prove a process in which it does work or GTFO. Cuz claims need foundation or they are baseless

Using the wrong tool for a job is never a good idea. It explains why there is no scientific evidence. The Force is understood by many (most?) Jedi to be experienced through the mind/body complex which creates our perception of awareness, perhaps even being a state of perception itself, and so as something which seemingly cannot be measured by other means we just have to wait for science to catch up. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So, as has been explained many times to you at this Temple, that it lacks any scientific evidence is not a valid or relevant criticism in this case. This is not an excuse, but rather an invitation to develop the tools and techniques to further the scientific field. Just because you don't experience something does not mean others don't. In the interests of speeding up the mouse wheel that is this old conversation you seem to like to have; in the past from this point you usually go to classifying it as hallucination or delusion and querying the utility of such a thing in practical reality and calling it a waste of time. And in the past my answer was always that is what Jediism is to many, developing tools and techniques specifically so they do provide advantage and utility. You usually drop it at that point, but I thought I'd save a few pages of the same old stuff by skipping to there to see if you have any new replies or perspectives that might actually be relevant to what others are saying?

Adder wrote: ... as something which seemingly cannot be measured by other means we just have to wait for science to catch up. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So, as has been explained many times to you at this Temple, that it lacks any scientific evidence is not a valid or relevant criticism in this case. This is not an excuse, but rather an invitation to develop the tools and techniques to further the scientific field.

Right, and what do we do in the meantime, then? Just speculate about it and believe blindly what ever wild ideas we can make up about it? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is absence of a justification to believe. Of course we can believe anyway, but it is then not the skeptic's fault if they point out that the belief is unfounded and/or unreasonable.
But of course it is worse than that, because we do have evidence of absence. You see, the absence of evidence is only neutral if the statement proposed does not imply evidence within the observable range. If the thing claimed is to have any power sufficient to generate evidene of its presence within any range of observation we can investigate, then the absence of any trace of that power is extremely strong disconfirmation of the claimed thing's presence. It's like with the soul or the untapped power of the mind more recently. If it is out there, it matters almost as little as not at all, and if it actually is to have any kind of noteworthy impact, then we would have detected it by now.

Just because you don't experience something does not mean others don't.

You are right, it doesn't. What would, though? For that matter, what sort of confirmation would it take to say that others do experience the claimed thing? If someone experiences a blimp in the sky, I can stand beside them and look the same direction. Maybe I'd even be content with reviewing a photo they make of it. That wouldn't confirm that they are seeing it, but at least I could have some kind of reasonable expectation that they might, assuming some commonalities between us. If they are blind, of course, then the chances of them seeing the blimp are rather slim, even if I can confirm its presence to within as much as I trust my own senses. If I am blind and they can see, then my inability to spot the blimp is of course no proof that they cannot. Would I however have any reason to believe that they can? Well, sure, if others have confirmed the fortitude of their eyesight and if they have been honest about such trivial things with me in the past, maybe I do. So what happens if both of us are blind, and they claim to be experiencing a blimp in the sky? Just because I cannot experience doesn't mean that they cannot. That they are blind also doesn't, they say, for it is a spiritual blimp, one that signals them personally about its location. What makes it reasonable for me to believe that they are experiencing the blimp? I don't want to call them a liar. Maybe they are actually having some experience, I wouldn't know. But they are claiming that there is a blimp there and they have no means of demonstrating that what they are experiencing is it, nor a way to transfer their experience to me like the seeing friend did with the photo. I don't have to (though I may well) doubt their sincerity, but I have every reason to doubt their correctness, and it is not the skeptic's fault that the claim is so spurious.

Also - please remember that this is in the Abrahamic faith section. As discussions happens often in many places here - it is not our practice here to tell others to Shut the anything up and it is against our rules ...

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/47-help/679-termsofuseandrules#RulesOffensiveLanguage
——TotJO is a place for spiritual enlightenment, self discovery and discussion of many varied and wide ranging topics. Here at TotJO we debate arguments not personalities and ideas instead of people.
It demonstrates negative traits in an individual namely disrespect for fellow users and lack of control of oneself. 'Heat of the moment' is not a viable excuse, for as Jedi one must possess more control.

So, please think about what you have typed before sending. Show your respect and consideration for your fellow Temple members by simply maintaining the self-restraint to not swear. As it is much easier to control this behaviour when typing than it is in verbal conversation, there really is no acceptable excuse.

Post what you think is acceptable for an 8 year old to read (be it your own child or another) as this is in fact a family, and public, forum after all. If in doubt, leave it out.

Please note also that swearing is not the only way to offend. One can be just as demeaning and derogatory without resorting to swear words. These cases are as equally inappropriate and are covered under the same regulation on the forum.

Please
And
Thanks you

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: ... as something which seemingly cannot be measured by other means we just have to wait for science to catch up. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So, as has been explained many times to you at this Temple, that it lacks any scientific evidence is not a valid or relevant criticism in this case. This is not an excuse, but rather an invitation to develop the tools and techniques to further the scientific field.

Right, and what do we do in the meantime, then? Just speculate about it and believe blindly what ever wild ideas we can make up about it? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is absence of a justification to believe. Of course we can believe anyway, but it is then not the skeptic's fault if they point out that the belief is unfounded and/or unreasonable.
But of course it is worse than that, because we do have evidence of absence. You see, the absence of evidence is only neutral if the statement proposed does not imply evidence within the observable range. If the thing claimed is to have any power sufficient to generate evidene of its presence within any range of observation we can investigate, then the absence of any trace of that power is extremely strong disconfirmation of the claimed thing's presence. It's like with the soul or the untapped power of the mind more recently. If it is out there, it matters almost as little as not at all, and if it actually is to have any kind of noteworthy impact, then we would have detected it by now..

Incorrect, the study of the mind is in dire need of tools to bridge subjective knowledge into objective knowledge and so in the meantime we wok with what we can, albeit mostly mental it seemingly has immense power. You seem not to have understood my first 3 sentences, and so missed my point entirely. The toys called scientific instrumentation dont yet touch the one we each are. Simply put, its a different field of study.

You are right, Adder, I do not understand what you are saying. We seem to agree that there is no evidence for the thing claimed. I think that makes it unreasonable to believe it. Are you saying that it is unreasonable to ask for any? Because that's what this sounds like. It sounds like you are saying that there is this category of claims about how the natural world works that should - at least for the time being - be excempt from critical analysis or skeptical inquiry. I have not the silghtest idea why anyone would say such a thing but it keeps happening, and for some obscure reason, only for claims that would fail any such scrutiny.

Gisteron wrote: You are right, Adder, I do not understand what you are saying. We seem to agree that there is no evidence for the thing claimed. I think that makes it unreasonable to believe it. Are you saying that it is unreasonable to ask for any? Because that's what this sounds like. It sounds like you are saying that there is this category of claims about how the natural world works that should - at least for the time being - be excempt from critical analysis or skeptical inquiry. I have not the silghtest idea why anyone would say such a thing but it keeps happening, and for some obscure reason, only for claims that would fail any such scrutiny.

Nobody I know is saying that. What I usually hear is people not wanting to examine the proof there is and find ways to expand our working knowledge of it. There are plenty of people who have experienced obe's, clairvoyance, precognition, and other "psychic" phenomena. Enough that it's unconscionable to me that the broader "scientific community" avoids it all together.. What I hear is that if we can't detect these phenomena through natural methods, then it doesn't exist.. but that's like trying to catch air in a net..

I've had personal experiences with telekinesis. I did a simple experiment.. but besides having things that could pick up the effects of my aura on my body. The main point of the experiment was to see the minds ability to control and project these effects..

Adder wrote: Using the wrong tool for a job is never a good idea. It explains why there is no scientific evidence. The Force is understood by many (most?) Jedi to be experienced through the mind/body complex which creates our perception of awareness, perhaps even being a state of perception itself, and so as something which seemingly cannot be measured by other means we just have to wait for science to catch up.

What exactly is this mind/body complex you are speaking of? Can you define that and if so, can you show that definition is viable? How exactly does it create our perception of awareness? How is it alone, used to “measure” this proposition of The Force you put forward and what data can be gleaned from this measurement?

You say science does not have the tools to explore this and then you proceed to define a tool that can be used to explore this concept. So which is it? Is there a tool or not?

Adder wrote: Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So, as has been explained many times to you at this Temple, that it lacks any scientific evidence is not a valid or relevant criticism in this case.

Absence of evidence also does not mean we just get to make up whatever mumbo jumbo we want to make up and claim it as truth and then demand that tools need to be created in order to prove this mumbo jumbo. This has been explained to you just as many times at this temple. In fact your whole process is backwards. You don’t get to make a conclusion and then build a tool to show the conclusion. This is called confirmation bias. So throwing out your logical fallacy does make my criticism relevant.

Adder wrote: This is not an excuse, but rather an invitation to develop the tools and techniques to further the scientific field.

Actually this is the very definition of an excuse. You make a conclusion and then invite me to create a tool to confirm your conclusion??!! Why would I or anyone else ever conceivably do this? It does not matter if it’s scientifically relevant or not. It’s like coming to me and telling me the earth is hollow. And when I question that conclusion you tell me it’s simple, all I have to do is make a tool to prove that! Well I’m sorry but the burden of proof is not on me, it’s on you. You have to show me it’s hollow, not the other way around.

Adder wrote: Just because you don't experience something does not mean others don't. In the interests of speeding up the mouse wheel that is this old conversation you seem to like to have; in the past from this point you usually go to classifying it as hallucination or delusion and querying the utility of such a thing in practical reality and calling it a waste of time. And in the past my answer was always that is what Jediism is to many, developing tools and techniques specifically so they do provide advantage and utility. You usually drop it at that point, but I thought I'd save a few pages of the same old stuff by skipping to there to see if you have any new replies or perspectives that might actually be relevant to what others are saying?

I’m so appreciative adder, that you have taken the time to speed this up for me. My god what a magnanimous person you are for doing this! So appreciative… really I am. You are right of course, some experience things others do not. But beyond that, you can say nothing. Just because some experience things others do not does not prove they are real and if you can’t show those experiences to others in a coherent manner then you can’t even come to any conclusions about them. This means if you can’t show a reproducible phenomena given a specific set of conditions or even a reproducible effect of that phenomena then you really have only a question, not a conclusion. And to take that question and derive a conclusion is breakdown in logic and critical thinking.


Now if you come to me and say, I experienced something and I don’t know what it was but I would like to discuss it, then we can have a conversation. This is having an open mind. But if you come to me and you say I experienced something and it was definitely an energy source that creates and connects all life but can’t be found on the electromagnetic scale or reproduce any consistent effects but I just believe it can’t be anything other than this thing I shall call the Force, well then you have a closed mind and there is nothing intellectually for us to discuss.

This is where the lines are crossed over in this Topic. This Topic is in a Faith - Abarhamic Studies Section not a Debate or discussion section for Scientific Studies or Beliefs. Here at TOTJO, NO ONE is to tromp on anyone's Beliefs by some of the canter here. If you wish to discuss ones Scientific understandings or Thoughts take it out of this forum Topic. Each individual here has the rights to believe as they do, if it is a Faith based, so be it and NO ONE is to get out of line in that. Stick to the Section for which this Topic was brought into the Forum. Anything outside of a Topic's ideals is disrespectful, destruction of ones personal faith, engaging in attacking ones own beliefs, that within the Temples Forums is unacceptable by any means.

If you are not a Follower of a Faith Base, Do not challenge anyone else that does in this Forum Section!!

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Now if you come to me and say, I experienced something and I don’t know what it was but I would like to discuss it, then we can have a conversation. This is having an open mind. But if you come to me and you say I experienced something and it was definitely an energy source that creates and connects all life but can’t be found on the electromagnetic scale or reproduce any consistent effects but I just believe it can’t be anything other than this thing I shall call the Force, well then you have a closed mind and there is nothing intellectually for us to discuss.

What I'm trying to get my more skeptical Jedi to understand is there are aspects of The Force that can't be found on electromagnetic spectrum. The energy most are referring to only influences itself and whatever is connected to it. You'll never register it on a scale. Only see the effects on the object of focus..

Your thoughts create impressions on your body's nervous system. Which sends signals for the body to respond in kind.. "Lift arm, look left" your body takes cue from you. It doesn't move autonomously..

Uzima Moto wrote:
What I'm trying to get my more skeptical Jedi to understand is there are aspects of The Force that can't be found on electromagnetic spectrum. The energy most are referring to only influences itself and whatever is connected to it. You'll never register it on a scale. Only see the effects on the object of focus..

Your thoughts create impressions on your body's nervous system. Which sends signals for the body to respond in kind.. "Lift arm, look left" your body takes cue from you. It doesn't move autonomously..

So by your understanding and definitions are you saying that portions of The Force are on the magnetic spectrum? If so how do those interact with reality? by this Im asking what effects on what objects of focus are present?

So my impression of your map of the body is one in which mind or spirit or soul is separate than body, a distinct manifestation that continues on after the bodies death and is responsible for the animation of the physical body. You have also told me that I have misunderstood your concept of "heaven". Can you describe to me what makes you believe that "mind" is separate from body and what is your concept of The Force or Heaven that it returns to upon physical death? Your description hints at the fact that the body will not move without the spirit to manipulate it - that "you" or "self" is not the body. So how did you come to this conclusion that we are not our bodies but instead it consists of two separate things? And by what mechanism or process does the mind or soul use to manipulate or otherwise influence the body to be animated?