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

This is a completely false statement. We understand all the motivations that bring meaning to this existance. It is the meaning that shapes us yet the source for all that is meaningful, that which gives us reason to act and exist is scientifically undefinable and unmeasurable. A measurement of love or any other emotion is meaningless and unatainable. You are responding because you wish to. Any scientific explanation you give for this will fall short of anything meaningful. In the end at the root you will be forced to answer that science simply does not know. This means you are acting with a process that you must have faith in. You are accepting it's existance without scientific evidence.
I am lacking any scientific data concerning you but I understand you and others here quite well.

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

Do we? What is the motivation that brings meaning to this existance? And talk about 'IT is meaning that shapes us yet is the source of all that is meanignful'. Talk about a cirucular defination. THat statement HAS no meaning.You make the statement. Now, find a meaningful way to describe how we understand how things are meaningful.

Well, yes, of course. Science is a method for investigating how the universe works. It is not a search for meaning. Science does not address questions like, "Why are we here?" or "Why do people fall in love?".You can call yourself a force if you like, but in that case you're not doing science. You're just making up your own vocabulary.--Percy

perhaps you do not. That is your misfortune. The case that you do not understand love?
You are most welcome.

Perhaps this is better:This is a completely false statement. We understand all the motivations that bring meaning to this existance. It is the meaning that shapes us yet, the source for all that is meaningful, that which gives us reason to act and exist, that remains scientifically undefinable and unmeasurable. A scientific measurement of love or any other emotion is meaningless and unatainable under the scope of current scientific knowledge. I do not need too. We simply do.
I assert that we are the force that experiences this and evidence of our force is left everywhere by the consequences of our decision makeing. We leave a clear and easily followable trail.

Much, much better! I have just a minor quibble. It might be more accurate to say that we have a good idea of what contributes to making life meaningful. Saying that we understand things like love and greed and hate and so forth probably goes over the top. Mostly agreed. While there's nothing preventing science from studying measurable aspects of love (e.g., 56% of people who say they are in love with their spouse are still married to that spouse 5 years later), it would be entirely correct to say that none of that science does anything toward helping us understand what love is. As long as you don't believe you're making a meaningful scientific statement, this is fine. And given that science can't provide insights into the human search for meaning, this shouldn't be a problem for you.--Percy

depends what measurement and emotion you mean. I can show a person a series of stimuli and can measure their subjective responses on scales of emotion. I can also gain more objective measures using EEG, fMRI, PET, SCR, EMG and find that the subjective will correlate with the objective.

My suggestion has been and will remain that science is limiting itself.
Reality goes far beyond science's current approach to it's definition. My assertion requires a change in thinking. People simply do not like change.

Yes, you keep saying this, but you've offered no support for it, and you were arguing the exact opposite in your previous message. Your assertion is a simple misuse of vocabulary. They also tend to shy away from nonsense.After 144 messages you're still just repeating your initial assertion. You made a lot more sense when in your previous message you simply said that there are many aspects of the human condition not amenable to scientific study. I think many would agree with you. But it is contradictory on the one hand to claim that science is by its nature limited, and then on the other to complain that science is limiting itself.The "force of you", as others have told you, is simply influence. It isn't some new category of force for physics to examine. It belongs to the field of psychology if it belongs anywhere in science.--PercyEdited by Percy, : You => Your

It is not contradictory at all. The above statement is in complete agreement with itself. The current dogma that people insist on driving science down is the limiting factor. People are the key.It requires a shift in thinking that will come quite slowly but will surely come in time.

We do?? What are the motivations that bring meaning to this existance?
Do you understand it? What is the source?You can make claims about the 'motivations', you can make claims about the 'source'. That might be what you believe. That is just your interpretation and your belief. It has no 'Meaning' outside of you.

It has meaning outside of me the minute another sees it. Many people see very clearly what I see. I have met a number of them here. Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.