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

I expect you do. Let us know when you are ready to demonstrate your ability to flap your arms and fly.

In fact you have made the bare assertion but you have not provided any evidence at all to support this claim.

The problem is that you are careless in your wording.In the OP, you wrote:I don't have any problems with that, provided that I take your use of "force" to be metaphorical.But when you say "in many ways not according to any known physical laws," you have contradicted that OP statement. For your wording here claims that there is a violation of known physical laws. That might not be what you intended, but it is what you wrote.

Don't you see the difference between "science has not addressed this" and "this is not according to any known physical laws"?The second says that something happens different from what science says. The first says only that science doesn't say anything.That's why I suggested your wording was careless.

Suppose, of my own free will, I decide to do something. To be specific, suppose I decide to eat an apple. As a consequence of my eating that apple, various physical things happen. In principle, these actions can be described in terms of the motion of atoms. When you say "this is not according to any known physical laws" you seem to be saying that the motion of atoms violates physical laws.Based on other things you have posted in this thread, I suspect that isn't what you mean. Rather, I think you wanted to say that

quote:

---

Perhaps you would care to give us an example of how this can affect the physical?

​

You do it every time you post.

---

That very mundane example does not seem to warrant the title of this thread.

What does "prove it's source" mean? And why is it painful.I'm having difficulty working out what it is you are trying to say. That seems to suggest a misunderstanding. "Force" is a technical term in physics. It is defined in terms of the effect of the force. Your use of "the only evidence" misplaced. There could be no better evidence of a force.I spend part of my time studying human cognition, and I do think outside the box - so far outside that cognitive scientists are likely to conclude that I am obviously wrong. There are various groups within cognitive science, with different ideas as to how to explain cognition. You seem to fit with those known as "mysterians". The mysterians are those who want to take quite mundane things, and make a mystery out of them.If you want to be a mysterian, that's your choice. But it is silly to use your choice as an argument against science. Nobody is claiming that science has the answer to everything. Nobody is currently claiming that science has explained human cognition. I don't limit myself, at least not in that way. Most scientists are open to new discoveries. As far as I can tell, you have not presented any idea that is worth consideration. You have tried to present an aura of mystery, but I cannot see any interesting ideas within that mystery.If you have something that is worth consideration, then tell us what it is so that we can consider it.

I prefer to say that reality is the source for science.Yes we define science. We could even be said to invent it. But we invent it to deal with what we find in reality, so that make reality the primary source. I'm not sure of your point there. Science, as an institution, could be considered a kind of epistemic empire, and science is its own yardstick. Nobody has come up with a good way of using us as part of a precise technical definition. You started this thread. When asked for examples, you gave common place ones. That you made a thread of them, suggests that you find a mystery there. No. I am coming to your idea, trying to work out what you think warrants a discussion topic. Granted. But that does not help me understand what it is that you are trying to discuss.

You are reading things into it that I never said. No. I still don't know what is your idea, if there is one. You have been complaining that nobody was responding to your thread. So I have tried to be a nice guy and give some sort of response, even though I haven't found anything here worth responding to.

Then I suggest you start to explore it. Maybe you will come up with something interesting that others want to comment on.

This is not a persuasive argument.Science is a joint effort, with scientists checking each other's results. The cooperation and mutual checking involved should make science far less subject to faults than are individual scientists. And our experience is consistent with this. You keep using that word "source", but you have never explained what you mean. No, it isn't a thought process. It is al empirical project. It involves much interaction with the world. Sure, scientists use thought, but they use a whole lot more. And to think that you denied you were a mysterian (in Message 57). Yet here you are using vague language and your own undefined terminology, making it sound unnecessarily mysterious. Son Goku should have worded that as "rate of change of momentum with respect to time." And both the force of gravity and electromagnetic forces are defined as just that. Perhaps you are a bit rusty on your physics. No, spiritual terms only confuse the issues. Scientific terminology has the advantage of precision. When using it, we at least know what we are talking about. That's far better than what happens when spiritual terms are used. Sorry to disagree, but science gives us many perspectives. Science gives us a great deal of meaning. And we use science to understand ourselves.

Maybe it is clear to you. But you haven't made it clear to those reading your posts. Measurements are imprecise. But scientific laws and definitions can be very precise. When you turn the switch, and the light goes on, that isn't a matter of thought processes. When astronauts landed on the moon, it wasn't just a matter of thought processes. There are legitimate questions as to what constitutes a person. Is it just the atoms? Is it the chemical and informational processes? Is it an immaterial spiritual soul? People disagree about how to account for personal identity. This is the kind of issue that is studied in cognitive science.In my opinion, you are confusing the issue by trying to make it one of science in general, instead of concentrating on it as an aspect of cognitive science.

We don't. Evidently, you do not understand how "force" is used in physics. Science already has a clear definition for "force." Clear and precise definitions, with empirical procedures that make use of these definitions (as in measuring). And why is that a problem for science?Incidently, there are people who study the mind. Some of them assert that there are no such things as minds.

I'm not clear on what you think needs explaining.My reference was to "force" as used in physics. It is precisely defined. Whatever you have been trying to describe as "force of me" is still unclear after 85 or so messages in this thread. I'm not sure of your point.Pick up a physics book. It will have a clear definition. If it still isn't clear, then take a physics class. The laboratory component of that class is where you will learn, through practical experience, what is meant by "force." The foundation for measurement is simply its repeatability, as demonstrated with empirical testing. It requires no more foundation than that. Science is pragmatic. Scientists do what works. It is not a system of logical proof from first principles. There are no first principles.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this conclusion?