what do people think might exist between us and The Force?

Yes, subconsciously yes. But, in the literal meaning it is sub-conscious meaning, it is below conscious thought, therefore automatic. So, a higher plane of plain of consciousness is simply being aware that I am breathing then correct?

Much Love,
Kobos

Stars are somewhat like cosmic mitochondria, in the sense that they not only generate a butt ton of energy, but are responsible for the creation of most of the elements.
This statement, that stars are the source of life, isn't innacurate at all.
Without stars, planets would have never had formed, the elements that make up planets would have never formed, and the primordial atmosphere that made the development of RNA amd DNA would hace nevr happened.
All the energy we consume, whether from food, or the fuel that powers our society, this all originated from the Sun.
However, the Force is a very abstract concept, with many possible interpretations.
I am of the belief that the underlying framework that forms and makes up our Universe, is more insanely complex than we yet realize, and it is entirely possible and plausible that in our current state of evolution, we are not cognitively capable of comprehending the true depths of our reality.
Be it other dimensions, spacetime, whatever, who knows? We won't know it 20 years, or 50, and maybe not even 1000. All the more reason to make the most of your short life, enjoy yourself and be happy.

If you think about it, we not only come from the Universe, but are a part of the Universe, and therefore in a sense, our conciousness is the Universe experiencing itself subjectively (Alan Watts 101). Maybe that is the Force?
I don't know. Just a thought.

CaesarEJW wrote: Stars are somewhat like cosmic mitochondria, in the sense that they not only generate a butt ton of energy, but are responsible for the creation of most of the elements.
...
All the energy we consume, whether from food, or the fuel that powers our society, this all originated from the Sun.

The energy that plants (and other producers) and animals (or other consumers) store is, I agree, one way or another radiated to us from the sun. Seeing as fossil fuels also develop from biomatter, the same can be said of them. The elements that make up those organisms (or the goo they turn into after millions of years of compression under the surface) is of course not squirted out of our sun at us. Sure enough they did form with other stars, but unlike mitochondria that survive by producing ATP and releasing it to their environment, stars really only ever release their product as they die.

Also, nuclear fuels we use were neither produced by our sun nor do they store energy from it, so that'd be one exception. :silly:

I am of the belief that the underlying framework that forms and makes up our Universe, is more insanely complex than we yet realize, and it is entirely possible and plausible that in our current state of evolution, we are not cognitively capable of comprehending the true depths of our reality.

Funny thing here, I actually happen to think that the difficulty we have fully grasping the inner workings of the universe stems from its fundamental simplicity rather than complexity. We evolved long after it was formed, well after it had cooled down enough for all sorts of processes to take over and make things complicated. We have evolved to worry about food intake, short and mid term future security, the well-being of complex organisms around us... We don't even panic when deprived of oxygen, we just go to sleep and die in peace, because we evolved in a day where oxygen was so abundant that we never needed to worry about gathering any.

Our lives are complex and we evolved to cope with our complex lives. But the universe underneath it all operates on much simpler principles, so simple that most of us have difficulty wrapping our monkey brains around them. I wouldn't go as far as to say that there is a hard barrier stopping us from getting there. It's not that we are fundamentally incapable of comprehending these things, but most of us have more pressing, more complex things to worry about and we delegate the task of figuring out the simple things to those few among us who were willing to take it on.

Be it other dimensions, spacetime, whatever, who knows? We won't know it 20 years, or 50, and maybe not even 1000. All the more reason to make the most of your short life, enjoy yourself and be happy.

Never sure what people mean by "other dimensions", but spacetime we have had mostly down since the late 1910's. One could argue that Einstein's theory is a classical, continuum theory and hence its tension against the rest of quantum physics. While a quantum model of gravity is still waiting on experimental observations to even get started and will no doubt be a mathematical challenge no smaller than either quantum mechanics or relativity each were themselves, at least conceptually the leap isn't that far anymore. All the premises are there, all the groundwork has been done. Heck, we even have quantum electrodynamics already, so we know we can make a quantum field theory out of a classical one. Now only to generalize it to a non-linear one... Easier said than done, sure, but that's my point. We have come far enough to where we can say it so easily, because of just how much there is we already understand.

And yes, maybe it won't be as soon as another 20 years, or half a century or ten of them. Yes, don't let mankind's ignorance discourage you from living a full and happy life. If one must think of it at all, remember, that as long as the trek ahead may yet be, our journey has already taken us way past all points of no return. Wander out then from the path, enjoy the scenery our big caravan traverses, though do join back in before we move onward to new lands and leave behind the exhausted ones in our wake. And maybe, if you can, come help us pull ever forward, too.

In my practice - I have a very direct connections to what I call The Force. I see it every day. I see it in the water I drink, the medicine I take and the food I cook. There can be , what seems to be spans and gulfs between me and The Force but really it’s as far as we place it some times. For many different groups of religions - freedoms is always a arms length away or at least a word or whisper away.
For me - same goes with the Force. Every one has their own way and to each their own but this is mine so you ask I’ll tell ya ! What’s between me and the Force or what I actually call the Force in real life...nothing but space that I span quite frequently- roads I’ve taken elsewhere or even frequently taken routes. How do you get that ? How does one become the “guide” in such a place. Frequency. Not everyone will be like you but that’s ok too- Not to many people want what I’ve found in the Force - that’s ok too. I hope they look and find what they ARE seeking.

It took Tony Hawk - a famous American skater (skate boards) a long time but this past holiday he dresses up as a Old man and went to skating parks in his neighborhood and shared a love of “SK8 “ with strangers. Just sharing the basics sometimes takes years to understand and even longer time to practice and apply.

What’s between us ???? Only what we have allowed sometimes or not!

Kobos I would say sub like this does not mean beneath but submerged, meaning it is not less that conscious just hidden part of it. We are always aware we breathe, but we dont always perceive it, as in focus on it. But take away the oxygen and breathing will quickly become the only thing in life! Also brain damaged people that need life support have lost awareness of breathing, both normal and sub, so they are no longer conscious of it.

I just see subconscioysness as part of consciousness we are not actively perceiving.

Gisteron wrote: Never sure what people mean by "other dimensions..."

I don't know what other people mean either, but this is what I mean.
"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."
Other dimensions of reality, characterized by an increased number of physical coordinates, hence that reality containing physical characteristics (and possibly physical laws) we cannot even imagine, because we are 3rd dimensional creatures (for further explanation, please view the video below, Dr. Sagan explains it far better than I).
https://youtu.be/N7K5KjOdLD8

Sure, that'd probably be one of the ways I'd possibly use the term "dimension". The dimension of a vector space. Another common usage is when referring to types/kinds of physical quantities, in the sense of the units they use. Like torque (or its magnitude, at any rate), for instance, has the same dimension as mechanical work. But most of the time when it comes up in discussions of this sort it tends seldom to be used to mean anything like that

Like what exactly is an "other dimension" supposed to be? Other than what? Other than 3? Other than 8? If we want to be really fancy we can go with fractal spaces and speak of non-integer dimensions, too, and brace for the wrath of topologists over the sloppiness with which we'll make sure to borrow their language. But then what's even there to talk about? The dimension is just the number, and it's not unique either. There is an infinite amount of objects one can construct that all have the same dimension.

But of course, when people bring up "other dimensions" they aren't talking about the dimension of a space, are they... They will say such nonsensical phrases as "the fifth dimension" as if what they mean by dimension is not just a property of a space, but an actual thing they believe can be meaningfully counted among others like it, and referred to by its assigned place in that list...
And they don't mean dimension as in "unit" either, because those, too, are not ordered in any consistent enough way to where "the fifth dimension" can actually be a meaningful reference. If someone wants to say time, so they will, and if someone wants to refer to momentum, so they will, too. I haven't once encountered anybody refer to dimensions like that by some number of this sort.

And neither did Sagan. Even in the video, when he'd say third (or fourth) dimension, he'd really mean direction, the third component (i.e. the one that wasn't assumed known/defined already, the one missing to fully characterize every point of the larger 3d space flatland is embedded in) by which locations in the total space can be identified. His flatland-creatures aren't living in "the second dimension", they live in a space that has dimension two, and cannot point within it in a direction that is orthogonal to any other linear independent two because a vector fitting that description simply cannot exist within the space they are able/allowed to search. Indeed, if one were to say that they lived in the second dimension, would that not make them one-dimensional, since they only live in the one dimension? They live "in two dimensions", though, colloquially speaking, in a space that has as many as two linear independent directions. We live in something like three or four-ish, if the more useful models we have are to be taken at face value. It's not a "dimension" other than flatland, it's just a different space with different properties - dimension being among them - and that's all there is to it...

Fyxe wrote: Kobos I would say sub like this does not mean beneath but submerged, meaning it is not less that conscious just hidden part of it. We are always aware we breathe, but we dont always perceive it, as in focus on it. But take away the oxygen and breathing will quickly become the only thing in life! Also brain damaged people that need life support have lost awareness of breathing, both normal and sub, so they are no longer conscious of it.

I just see subconsciousness as part of consciousness we are not actively perceiving.

That's a fair description. So, I have to ask then is not any form of higher consciousness the same thing until we are aware of it? How do we define above or below on things more complex than breathing? Are different forms of "higher consciousness" separate from the consciousness currently? And there fore the self? Where does that leave the whole of the universe?

Just asking and some thoughts. I am a very Socratic learner (bare with my questions please), I think we have a bunch to learn from each other and you have some fresh ideas to present me and others. And starting small before we hit the list you have in the OP is giving me a better idea of what you mean by each.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Gisteron wrote: Sure, that'd probably be one of the ways I'd possibly use the term "dimension". The dimension of a vector space. Another common usage is when referring to types/kinds of physical quantities, in the sense of the units they use. Like torque (or its magnitude, at any rate), for instance, has the same dimension as mechanical work. But most of the time when it comes up in discussions of this sort it tends seldom to be used to mean anything like that

Like what exactly is an "other dimension" supposed to be? Other than what? Other than 3? Other than 8? If we want to be really fancy we can go with fractal spaces and speak of non-integer dimensions, too, and brace for the wrath of topologists over the sloppiness with which we'll make sure to borrow their language. But then what's even there to talk about? The dimension is just the number, and it's not unique either. There is an infinite amount of objects one can construct that all have the same dimension.

But of course, when people bring up "other dimensions" they aren't talking about the dimension of a space, are they... They will say such nonsensical phrases as "the fifth dimension" as if what they mean by dimension is not just a property of a space, but an actual thing they believe can be meaningfully counted among others like it, and referred to by its assigned place in that list...
And they don't mean dimension as in "unit" either, because those, too, are not ordered in any consistent enough way to where "the fifth dimension" can actually be a meaningful reference. If someone wants to say time, so they will, and if someone wants to refer to momentum, so they will, too. I haven't once encountered anybody refer to dimensions like that by some number of this sort.

And neither did Sagan. Even in the video, when he'd say third (or fourth) dimension, he'd really mean direction, the third component (i.e. the one that wasn't assumed known/defined already, the one missing to fully characterize every point of the larger 3d space flatland is embedded in) by which locations in the total space can be identified. His flatland-creatures aren't living in "the second dimension", they live in a space that has dimension two, and cannot point within it in a direction that is orthogonal to any other linear independent two because a vector fitting that description simply cannot exist within the space they are able/allowed to search. Indeed, if one were to say that they lived in the second dimension, would that not make them one-dimensional, since they only live in the one dimension? They live "in two dimensions", though, colloquially speaking, in a space that has as many as two linear independent directions. We live in something like three or four-ish, if the more useful models we have are to be taken at face value. It's not a "dimension" other than flatland, it's just a different space with different properties - dimension being among them - and that's all there is to it...

Well, that's exactly what I mean. Now can we stop gerrymandering semantics in lieu of the fact that neither of our interpretations or perspectives of reality actually matters in the long run, and instead just be appreciative of the fact that your awesome, I'm awesome, we are all awesome, simply existing is awesome, and despite being total strangers from most likely distant areas of the world, this magical thing called the "internet" allows us to communicate?
Btw Gisteron, I love that when we talk about something, I always feel like I'm wrong, even if I am actually somewhat correct. You challenge my brain, I like it.