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

How is it narrow?
That is what a force is. Something which effects momentum.
Anything which has an effect that does not directly change momentum isn't a Force.When you try to describe a classical system you basically specify a few things:
The Potential. The form of the Kinetic Energy. The initial velocities and positions and the total energy.The Potential can be found from the equations which govern the behaviour of the relevant force.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 04-30-2006 03:37 PM

Perhaps it would help if you provided an example of what you're talking about.--Percy

2ice_baked_taters I was addressing your response to percy. You said I asked you to perform certain experiments in order to have you get an understanding of the physical nature of the forces of gravity and electromagnetism and have these become clear in your mind. Failing this I would expect you to counter with a hypothesis to explain why you feel that these phenomena are not physical.

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.

First I'll comment on your spelling. We all make spelling mistakes, and it is usually poor form to comment on them. But you are making a few that detract from what you are writing. Maybe there isn't anything more to detect, but we happen to be looking at it in the wrong way.It would be better (less confusing) if you just directly commented on human cognition, instead of your talk about "independent of the laws of physics". I happen to agree with that. And, like you, I am skeptical of much of what is published as hypothesized explanations of cognition. However, I am not making a mystery of it.

I think Nwr and I are just trying to encourage you toward saying something specific and meaningful about your idea. That science doesn't know all there is no know is already obvious - if we already knew everything then there would be a lot of unemployed scientists. And science not only concedes that current views may change, it incorporates that fact as a foundational principle in tentativity.The very general terms in which you're stating your case could be used to advance any idea, whether it's you as a force or pink dragons in the Garden of Eden. Is there anything you can say that bears on your own idea specifically?Google Toolbar has a great spellchecker, and it works with both Internet Explorer and FireFox. AbE: Click here: Google Toolbar--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, Mon, 05-01-2006 08:55 AM

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.

In what way? I don't "search my belief". Rather, I examine evidence. I'm not so sure that there is a "current scientific understanding of the nature of what "physical" is. Rather, "physical" seems like a vague term that we cannot precisely define. You have only yourself to blame for that. You are not communicating well. Your choice of words conveys to many readers that you are arguing against physics. That's why Percy and I have been urging you to look for better ways of saying what you are trying to say. Your use of "force" is still misleading, and is part of why you are seen as attacking physics. The word "force" has a well defined meaning in science. The term of art for what you are trying to say is "agent". We are agents, and in particular we are autonomous agents. I am not trying to deny you your perspective. Rather, I am trying to encourage you to express your perspective in a way that is easier for people to follow. You have missed the point. Your "spelling" is but a symptom of your communication problems. It isn't really a spelling problem. It's a "wrong word" problem. A spell checker won't help. You are using homonyms of the words you should be using. When you write "weather" in place of "whether", "here" in place of "hear" and "sight" in place of "site", you are writing meaningless nonsense. We have to look for homonyms to replace what you wrote, so that we can best find out what you are meaning to say. Properly defining what you are trying to say is an essential part of effective communication.

Hi 2ice_baked_taters,I guess I agree with Nwr in that it seems that the absence of any clear and consistent articulation of your ideas is causing the negative responses.People who have no idea what they're talking about present their ideas in pretty much the same way you have here, including blaming everyone else. One of the characteristics of lack of knowledge and confusion is an inability to enable others to see your point of view. If you're actually someone who knows what he's talking about, then you have to present your ideas in a way that reflects that.I again suggest that you provide an example of what you're talking about. Discussion will be easier with something concrete to focus on.--Percy

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.

If I could slip briefly into Admin mode, this is your topic, initiated by you to discuss whether we can affect the physical universe outside of the laws of physics. If you'd like to discuss a different topic concerning differences in perspective then please propose a new thread and I will approve it as quickly as I can.Returning to Percy mode, I again suggest that you provide an example of what you're talking about in order to help move the discussion forward. Or if you have other ideas for how to allow the discussion to make progress, that would be fine, too.--Percy

Somebody inject 2ice_baked_taters with heroin, k? This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-03-2006 07:54 PM

That kind of sophomoric comment may be acceptable on some of the kiddie blogs but it's not acceptable here. Do not do it again.

---

Opiates have been studied in-depth. Can you think of a better example with which to invalidate his claim that his mind's functions aren't physical?

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.