Do we affect the" physical " indepentent of the laws of physics

No, I do not have a problem with this concept. Is conveys my meaning quite clearly. I am unclear as to how you are recieving it.
They suggest that there is much we do not know and that we should have a look. This is one approach that may bare fruit.

The laws of physics do not recognize the force of me. My physical body though, must obey them so I must succumb to them in that context.
I affect the world around me on a daily basis in some very unique and unpredictable ways.
I am a force that does things at will and in many ways not according to any known physical laws. In fact it can be said that the force that is “us” generates it’s own set of changing laws called beliefs. The force that is us succumbs to these laws both by coercion of other similar forces and our choice. By obeying these laws we in turn can have a profound and unpredictable effect on the physical world. In effect, our changing Laws can become a force and in turn, affect the physical world in unpredictable ways according to the laws of physics. In addition to this we as individual forces can choose to act against the very laws we generate.
Perhaps thinking of us in terms of an energy force will allow science to have a better glimpse at that which is “us”.I find this perspective interesting and would like to see it explored.We speak of forces in science all the time that we can only identify by the evidence they leave behind. What big leap is required to consider my suggestion?

You do it every time you post.

We only know our own definitions. Order and entropy are simply a matter of our perspective. How gestalt of you. The mind? what is "the mind"? Sing with me now...."One of these things is not like the others". lol
True to the above statement person is just a part of the human race. Wow.....I never said anything was divorced. You perhaps percieve it this way. This is only the case if one is under the belief that the scientific knowledge we have learned explains everything. That is a faith based assumption. Cosmos by what definition and how do you know this? Perspective is everything. You have this one. We are drifting here and this also falls into belief as your statements do but
for you and some others I will share a piece of mine.
I do not have a "soul" I am "soul" mind and free will are just aspects or "properties" of me.
As to weather or not we get recycled....ultimately...who knows.

Science does painfully lack the ability to prove it's source.As I said before....we talk about forces all the time and the only evidence they exist are the tracks they leave.
Your decissions are not in any way physically identifyable accept for the evidence they leave behind in the physical.
You can make many decissions that no one will ever be aware of. We all do. You may act a certain way based on decissions you make, yet based on the actions we cannot necessarily discern the reasons or properties that propogated the application of the force that is you in such a physical way. This does require a different perspective. If you are under the assumption that what we know scientificly defines all that is, you have limited yourself. I do not wish to limit myself this way. My idea may be way off but as I said I believe it is worth consideration.

I don't really see why it matters or what impications it has. Why is it so interesting to you?Lets say that we DO affect the physical independent of the laws of physics, what's next to discuss?Here's an example, lemme know if I'm gettin what you're saying. From each new perspective things may be learned. How this might be applied and in what context I have not thunk on it. This seems to be more than enough for people to deal with.

We are the source for science. We define it. It is hardly some imperial yardstick. I suspect you have a different view. Yes this is the point. So why not a similar view of us? Give me reasons. I never suggested the common place is mysterious. You seem to be percieving it as such. You did not mean mysterious as in "we do not know" but more with the trivial disdain of "don't bore me with your meaningless prattle". You are coming to my idea with preconceptions. You have or are atempting to put me in a box I refuse to go in. I suggested that the common place is so common that we may have overlooked it. So both our heads do not get too big. We are both human and prone to bias. I know I am. Now I know you could not have possibly suggested that you or scientists are somehow above or imune to this.

It is all a matter of perspective my friend. You seem to hold science with much more esteem then the tool you profess it to be. As if the "divine reality" is the source for science. As if science is serving some higher purpose. One of our biggest mistakes is when we put things on pedestals. Your inference smells much more like a religious belief to me. Yes, and I am the most handsome man in the world. You do not need to ask how or why I know this do you. There is no such thing as a precise technical definition. Definitions are within accepted parameters within a context.
perception is everything You are coming to my idea with preconceptions. I believe that means you are weighing my idea against your reality.We are both human and prone to bias. I have been aware that you understand my forums meaning from before I began it. You are also aware that this discussion between you and I is at an impass. You will not cross it and neither will I.
You are either engadging me for another purpose or you are arguing your beliefs -ImhoAnd in truth to this sight we have begun to drift off topic
please moderate us.

Evidence for us is everywhere. Mundane
As mundane as old bones in a layer of rocks. In fact bones have far less to tell us. We looked at them anyway and had to see them in a different perspective to see anything of value. Now we know they tell us a story.
A fresh look at the old us. Why the rejection?
I am thinking.......If we are indeed a force with purpose then
it opens a whole new world to explore.
The idea will live or die with or without you.
I just thought it was worth sharing and exploring.
The 2 of you don't. There is no arguement.

Correct. My attempt was to speak of us as a force for that reason. To try and bridge the void if you will. As I said, science is painfully at a loss to define it's source. Even if we did it is like taking a ruler to measure how sexually atractive the opposite sex is. You may get results but they won't mean much. Correct. Any physical action. I never said that. I said there is a factor of independance and we are it. I have chosen to describe us as a force. What better aproach for science? Or "why throw the ball"
Should the ball be thrown now?
My arm is hurting so I won't throw it so hard.
I am embarrassed to throw the ball under these conditions.
or a myriad of things that make up each individuals choices.
The self evaluation of the choices made and how this adds up
in the big picture if one believe in one or cares to consider it.This is what will be missing. Of course we may some day acheive this or a representation of this.
I think it is a lot simpler and more rewarding to just have a child.

Since science is a human thing and subject to all our faults and prejudices. It will never be any more or less falible than we are.
Science is flawed because it's source is. That is a truth we cannot escape.
To suggest otherwise would imply a BELIEF that science is infalible.
It begs the question how can something infalible come from a falible source but that is a whole other topic.
Now I shall use your phrase in the following context.The scientific comunity recognises that the scientific method was invented by humans.
All observations are made by humans.
All conclusions are arrived at by humans.
We are the judge of the validity and value of all that is science.
Now when asking people to use science to define it's source.
The answer is....We simply don't know yet.Then these conclusions are all derived from a source that is not known yet?
Remember that science is a "thought process" before you bite into this one.
I will stand by my quote.
Science is painfully at a loss to prove it's source.
Since it is of the people, by the people and for the people.My topic is after all about us. Hence the reason for the topic. If I understood you right- your telling me we might obtain a model of something we have no definition for, using a method based on a source that is undetermined?
This is where I personally will allways have problems discussing science. I recognise it for the tool it is. I am not so sure some others do. I have a problem with this definition of force since we speak of the force of gravity and electomagnetic forces. This would seem a misuse of the word by this definition. However it is precisely how I would like to use it.
Yes a different perspective is taken there even though force is used freely both ways even by physicists. It's a human thing
I would gladly accept something that would appear more palitable to people. A causal agent may be more palatable but leaves much to be desired. The human language is at a loss here without using spiritual terms and If we go there we might as well stick with force. If someone has a better idea I would welcome it if it helps people to at least consider my topic.
I would like to see science look at the force of us just like it looks at the other forces it deals with. A way to describe something we can only detect by the effects it leaves behind. We do not speak of gravity or electromagnetism as causal agents. We call them forces.
Just thinkin out loud. Considering that science is only one way to look at things and only an aspect of us it will only give us one kind of perspective. Science has no meaning. We give science meaning. We use meaning to understand ourselves. Science is not that tool. So there is no doubt in my mind. When you say "science" you are reffering to an aspect of us of course. You do realise that don't you? It is not sepparate. So this suggests the possibility of using one aspect us to invent a complete model of us.
Then we would have a complete model of one aspect of us. "just thinking out loud"

How wonderful for those of you who agree with each other.
we all have our opinions.This is not a persuasive argument. My context is clear. My position is clear. But for you That would be the "you" you so conveniently keep refering to.
It's allways all about "you", isn't it....lol Yes that was my point. Note I have requested suggestions for a better description. However....nothing in science is precise. Everything is within acceptable tolerances. Precise is only a matter of perspective. So for your and my clarification we will try:
Scientific method is a thought process derived by "you's" and used by many "you's" to establish facts and general laws concerning the physical world through observation and testing by "you's" The results which are agreed upon by a majority of "you's" before being accepted as some sort of "empirical fact" by "you's" under the context of the thought process "scientific method" which "you's" invented.That was kinda fun
Anywho if the term "you" I have used does not work for "you" in this context I have established please feel free to offer reasonable alternatives. I am open to suggestions. I believe people or more in our established context "you's" use thought. According to who?
Am I understanding you correctly?
Sounds like self determined superiority to me
This is the problem with the idealistic conception of science. It involves all these little "you's"Since science is a human thing and subject to all our faults and prejudices. It will never be any more or less falible than we are. I will plug your definition into your senctence.
Quote "And both the [rate of change of momentum with respect to time] of [rate of change of momentum with respect to time]and [rate of change of momentum with respect to time][rate of change of momentum with respect to time]'s are defined as just that."Yes, I see now how this clears things up.
Hence my use of the word force This is a common mistake. We give us perspective. science is just a tool. the one described above.
Unless you are suggesting that science is somehow above/beyond or apart from us and affects us in some independant way.
Help me out here. Science has no meaning. It deals with "facts"
We bring meaning to anything within the context of our established "you"Viscious little circle aint it? Our physical selves. What about the "you"?My idea is an attempt.
To see it you must change your perspective This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 02:13 AMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 02:20 AMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 02:22 AM

Defined by who?
Show me gravity. I wanna see it.
Better yet define it.
NRW tried that. I pointed out the problem that occurs.
The same occurs when we try to describe the "force" that is us Is this your opinion? So this is your belief?
Surely you are not professing to know this as fact.
Houston...we have a problem
And on a truly human level.....relax Author no need to get all bent.
No topic is harder to discuss than this except the higher power thing.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 03:17 AM

We all do. Perhaps I will learn something from you.

Clever is one matter....wise is another.
I must say to do so would open up a bigger can of worms that we need.
What I do find distubing personally is the research into living computers. Using actual neural neworks. The search for knowledge is great but we do so blindly without wisdom. It is a bit disconcerting.
I have allways wondered why we are working so hard to artificially recreate ourselves when we can have children and it is much more rewarding.....the initial process ain't bad either.