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

In other words, we do not yet have a full scientific account of human cognition. I doubt that anyone will disagree with that.You are trying to make it into a bigger mystery than it is, with your talk about affecting the physical.Incidently, cognitive science is a research area. Why not spend some time on the web looking for what is and isn't known.

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.

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.

And by being able to measure it, we demonstrate our understanding. And that has a lot to do with why you are having difficulty explaining what you are talking about. What we do not understand well enough to be able to measure, we do not understand very well at all.

And we do not understand love very well at all.Thank you for making my case.