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

Then why do we use it in this "incorrect" way? I am using it exactly the same way every person must use it to comunicate the idea.
Find a way around this for me and it will go away.
Find a way for all of science to clearly define it's own definitions in this regard.
Hence my reason for refering to us as a force. I do not believe I said there was a problem there. Although some day I may see one, should I choose to put my mind to it. Now if you can accept this abstract interpretation of something you cannot see and only identify through "evidence" of, why the hesitence to accept this view of us? Science is built on clear and precise definitions is it not? That would apear to be a fundamental problem.
Science has no knowledge, evidence or good definition of "the mind".You get the same brain fart as when you say "force of gravity"Hence my topic.However I believe that to measure this in any way will prove elusive.
It will likely involve the likes of gasp! "string theory" twice removed in abstract form.
It is much easier just to say: Hi....how are yah doing?

Hmmm....I believe only if it was expelled with the intent....
But I am jumping ahead.....one step at a time.

You did right here below in this exerpt from your post 71. You used it the same way I intended it to be used.
Explain this. Unless you are going to claim that the writen language should be eliminated from physics definitions. I am still waiting for a clear definition there.
I understand the problem though. Oh I can see that quite clearly.
Nothing like a little bit of having yer cake and eating it too. Yes....science will have no problem with everything above concerning my idea but the measuring part. That will pose the biggest problem for science proving the foundation upon which it is built.
Have to start somewhere no?A different perspective perhaps? More power to them.
It is after all a matter of perspective.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-16-2006 02:40 PM

No...altruism is not explained by your definition. That is an opinion based on looking at it from one point of view.
The outcome may be the passing on of genes and may be more of a factor in the case of social structures such as bees exibit but you surely cannot begin to suggest that science has this nailed.

Well then let us come to an understanding with this force business.
It would appear to me that it may only be possible to express "force"
as it is "used" in physics in a non writen or non verbal context and only be clearly understood in this form in math.
Every time any of you have attempted to describe force to me you have had to cross your line. That just illustrates to me that the definition of force you are trying to convey is narrow and limited.

Yes I understand. But you have repeated the farfignewton. No, I have asked nothing of the kind. I have also never said or suggested that we violate the laws of physics. What I did say is that we affect things independant of the laws of physics. In other words we are a force that works through the physical world that science has yet found a way to describe. Physics has not yet the tools if it ever will. It may in fact not be the propper tool.

So you accept gravity because it can be measured and detected but cannot be shown. It is not a physical thing.
You accept electromagnetism because we have found ways to measure and detect it. But still something you cannot show me. It is not a physical thingI do not see our effect any differently. We just have not found a way to put it in a box and label it yet.As a side thought. It is interesting that the more we use physics to examine the "physical" the more removed from the physical is seems to become.

I have an idea. It is there. I choose not to share it's nature with you other than that I have an idea. You must believe I had one to accept that it was ever there. Trust...or distrust...questions of motivation.
Now tell me in in your terms how physical it was. Describe to me physically an inspiration that has any practical..."meaning"

See my response to percy.My view is that our definition of force as used in physics is narrow, incomplete and will change.

I have and I do.
Weather or not I agree with it is another thing altogether. One can define a monkey by the mole on it's ass if that is all one knows or allows themselves to look for. I tend to view people like that. Since people do science and are prone in mass to follow idiosyncratic doctrines and beliefs. It has happened before...happens now and will happen again.
When it comes to the mechanics of how...yep. Anything beyond that is conjecture to me. That is where the ego's and beliefs pop out. Here is the ego at it's best. You have all the answers then? You are so wize that you know for sure the limits of what is and isn't and are positive how to find the answers and where thay lie?. And I am to take you at your word?
It is only a mystery to you. You will not here me profess a bunch of belief garble D gook of one form or other. Just the simple idea that there is more that may not be so easily detected or clearly understood with the tools we have or choose to use at this time. I believe it will require a change in thinking that will not come easy to most.
Funny that string theory is even considered. Other dimensions and such. I happen to think we are right under our noses.

Well I will say this with all the confidence of knowing people.
I know you both understand there is a vast difference between the childish comment of pink dragons and what I am suggesting.The very idea of humam cognition is to me a very incorrect way of seeing us. The search to describe us in that light may bear some fruit however it is a flawed view from the beginning. Ideas like that are the pink dragons of science to me. There is no difference between a priest trying to "save a soul" and a "scientist" who searches for their belief in a physical cause for human cognition. I believe the current scientific understanding of the nature of what "physical" is, is both incomplete and flawed. I have made the comment before that it is all in ones perspective. The current popular scientific line of thinking will only bear one kind of fruit. It is a very linear way of thinking and is no different than a pink dragon in the hands of an evangelist. I see you and others like you here argue with a bit of zeal to uphold some idea of what you think a "truth" might be.
I speak in general terms because that is the best anyone can do with an idea of this nature. The fact that you refer to my idea as promoting a "mystery" tells me exactly where you come from. Unless you play a game. After all, what better place to conduct research.
I also tire of those who off handedly claim that I am denouncing physics or "science" in general. Making silly comments like...step off a building and see how non physical gravity is. As If I personally attack all they "believe" in. I have never in any of my comments anywhere on this sight said that what we have learned is meaningless or negated in any fashion or form. There is a belief here shared by many that "physics" or science in general is the key to understanding or unlocking all the worlds or universes mysteries. We will get answers only from that quantitative perspective. My perspective includes yours. There is that element among you who oh so badly wish to deny me mine. As if I am the fool. Perhaps not you personally but I do wonder considering many comments made.
Still through physics we may come to understand us as a force of a sort. This may still not beach the "gap" we bandy about but...one step at a time.The simple fact that my spelling bothers you tells me that you are not comfortable unless your surroundings are VERY well defined.
Though I agree that to spell well is not a bad thing and improving will not hurt I also understand that to make my point it is not required. I am a mediocre typist at best and it probably equals my spelling prowess. I believe this general need of definition can make you dwell on or get lost in the details and miss a bigger picture.
You take your science too seriously.

Ah. I have many many times. Again..the very interaction we are having is an example.Your idea of concrete and mine simply differ. I would assume you accept that you are. I simply percieve it differently than you. Your perspective will not allow you to consider my idea. We have simply went around the same tree from the start. My basic thought is very worthy of pursuit. I will likely never pursue it in a research fashion because my life has taken a very different path. The life I live simply does not afford me the luxury of pondering for a living.By the way. I have seen numerous errors in grammar since I have been here by you and many others. I do not feel the need to mention it because I understand what was meant. Some were made with an obvious lack of sleep or other imparement.
Something tells me you and a few others here could suck the fun out of laughter. That's pretty concrete to me.

F=ma is only a definition in the sense that we can observe changes in the relationship between the measure of a property of matter we have named mass and another numerical relationship we have observed between a measurement of distance and time(acceleration)All physics will ever do, until there is a shift in thinking, is show the mechanical relationships between a property of matter we have defined as mass interacting with other matter through a process or vehicle we have called force. All we know about mechanical force it that we can measure it. This is a very narrow use of the word force. One that many of you have followed without question. We on the other hand use the word in life to describe interactions in a much more meaningful way. Measurement is only verification of measurement and defines nothing accept in terms of measurement. This is an example of the application of a force. I calcualted by "feel" a desired reaction. I am have and been applying a force in a very real sense. Many of you, are.... undenyably resisting.

Chemical manipualtion of the physical brain indicates nothing concerning the idea of the abstract and unphysical idea of the mind. A mind does not "function" to me...a brain does. An abstract idea in itself is evidence to me of things that exist that are not physical.
However if you choose to "believe"(abstract idea) that all things existing have underlying "physical" causes which "explain" them, that is your religious choice. Sounds like another topic. lol

I am very aware of thier definitions. I also understand what they have in common. One is a measurement of a phenomenon.A measurement is not a meaningful definition of a phenomenon.It is simply a property of that phenomenon. I can measure you as a function of various quantitative criteria. The observations will be empirically correct. However they will be meaningless in describing you to in any human sense.
The other involves meaningful descriptions of what that phenomenon can be in various aspects of life experience. The latter is inclusive of the concept that the former measures in only one aspect of life experience. I am currently exerting a force upon you and others here that is evident by the effect the force is having. The formula, if there could be one, to arive at any quantitative derivation would likely make anything quantum mechanics has dreamed up seem simple and mundane. However it would simply be a measurement or property of you, the phenomenon. However I am sure this hypothetical measurement might be useful in some way.