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

I think the essential answer to your question is we don't know if the laws of physics don't recognise the (cringe)"force" of you.It is unknown if intellect is emergent from currently known laws or not.
The reason for such is two fold.
Software and Hardware if you will.We also haven't developed complexity theory to the level required to handle the kind of self-regulating (and defining) information behemoth that is the human mind.Also the Brain, as a lump of matter, isn't fully understood in terms of its properties.However if we reach the point where we can understand this stuff, it may turn out that there is a non-physical component.Either way, I can plug any action you perform into Elementary Mechanics and predict what will happen, as such this doesn't present a giant hole in physical theories.All that is missing is a correct understanding of the process which turned certain inputs in your environment into "throw the ball".

When discussing science it is best to drop certain emotive phrases.
"Painfully at a loss" implies something which isn't the case.
As if we're desperate to find a scientific explanation but just can't, there by exposing some flaw in science.
It would be better to say the much more bland "We don't know yet". You don't know that. For all intensive purposes we might obtain a fully deterministic model of consciousness. Force is a poor word choice as force is already defined as the change of momentum over time.
A better word would be "causal agent" or something similar.You seem convinced that the human mind can't be understood completely by science, where as this is may not be case.
For now all we can say is that science has not advanced to the point where it can model the human mind, if it is even capable of doing so.

Thanks, I'm so loose on my phraseology sometimes.
Although I also shouldn't have solely choosen the Elementary Mechanics definition.For 2ice_baked_taters, Force is only defined as either:1. The change of momentum with respect to time.
2. The negative gradient of a scalar potential for a strictly conservative Force.
3. Some function of the Curl of a Vector Potential and a time derivative of a Scalar Potential. (Magnetism is practically the only Force for which this case applies.)
4. It's Quantum Field Theoretic definition, which I won't go into.As you can see, these are very strict mathematical definitions, which is what makes "The force of me" a very vague statement.

Our problem is with your incorrect use of the word force where it doesn't apply. Gravity is the tendency of initially inertial frames to accelerate with respect to each other in the vicinity of Stress-Energy.
There is no problem there.As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm gathering that you're describing a self-referencing problem in science.
That since science comes from our minds and since neither science nor any other branch of knowledge has full knowledge of the mind, the "source" of science goes unexplained.
This leaves science with some flaw.Is this what you're saying?

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