What is the Force MkII

More
13 Mar 2019 18:53 #335524 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic 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.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Mar 2019 19:12 - 13 Mar 2019 19:15 #335527 by Kyrin Wyldstar

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.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 13 Mar 2019 19:15 by Kyrin Wyldstar.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Mar 2019 21:56 #335534 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic What is the Force MkII

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 :D


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.

File Attachment:
Temple Security Officer ~ Jedi Knight ~ Seminarian
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
'The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.'
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos, Arisaig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 00:01 #335540 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic What is the Force MkII

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...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 01:05 - 14 Mar 2019 01:55 #335544 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic What is the Force MkII
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.



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.

File Attachment:
Temple Security Officer ~ Jedi Knight ~ Seminarian
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
'The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.'
Last edit: 14 Mar 2019 01:55 by Adder.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 11:04 #335562 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic What is the Force MkII
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.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 16:04 - 14 Mar 2019 16:04 #335576 by Kyrin Wyldstar

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.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 14 Mar 2019 16:04 by Kyrin Wyldstar.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 16:07 #335577 by Arisaig
Replied by Arisaig on topic What is the Force MkII

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:

Sword of the Jedi
Knight of the Temple of the Jedi Order
The Fulcrum Knight of the Order of Onyx
Jedi Battlemaster

~ IP I AP I DQS I Knight I Personal ~
Training Master: Zenchi
Apprentice: Open for Application

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 16:12 #335579 by Kyrin Wyldstar

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

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
The following user(s) said Thank You: Arisaig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 16:14 #335581 by Arisaig
Replied by Arisaig on topic What is the Force MkII

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.

Sword of the Jedi
Knight of the Temple of the Jedi Order
The Fulcrum Knight of the Order of Onyx
Jedi Battlemaster

~ IP I AP I DQS I Knight I Personal ~
Training Master: Zenchi
Apprentice: Open for Application

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.