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

What a completely unsatisfying reply! Yeah, and some of them are worthless. That is what I was getting at. You claim to have this thing you're refering to as "my idea". But your idea is worthless if it isn't gonna provide us with something to discusss.Assmue your premises are true and get moving with the argument. So what if physics don't define the force that is you? What next? This idea of yours seems to be worthless to me. I hope its not "your idea" that you think people are dealing with. Its not, its the ambiguity of your posts.So, take your fist post and assume that everyone agrees with it. Now what? Does this discussion even have anywhere to go?

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.

Evidence for us is everywhere. Mundane
As mundane as old bones in a layer of rocks. In fact bones have far less to tell us. We looked at them anyway and had to see them in a different perspective to see anything of value. Now we know they tell us a story.
A fresh look at the old us. Why the rejection?
I am thinking.......If we are indeed a force with purpose then
it opens a whole new world to explore.
The idea will live or die with or without you.
I just thought it was worth sharing and exploring.
The 2 of you don't. There is no arguement.

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

Correct. My attempt was to speak of us as a force for that reason. To try and bridge the void if you will. As I said, science is painfully at a loss to define it's source. Even if we did it is like taking a ruler to measure how sexually atractive the opposite sex is. You may get results but they won't mean much. Correct. Any physical action. I never said that. I said there is a factor of independance and we are it. I have chosen to describe us as a force. What better aproach for science? Or "why throw the ball"
Should the ball be thrown now?
My arm is hurting so I won't throw it so hard.
I am embarrassed to throw the ball under these conditions.
or a myriad of things that make up each individuals choices.
The self evaluation of the choices made and how this adds up
in the big picture if one believe in one or cares to consider it.This is what will be missing. Of course we may some day acheive this or a representation of this.
I think it is a lot simpler and more rewarding to just have a child.

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.

I don't know if the human mind can be totally understood by science. However, I am sure that being able to reproduce the workings of the mind artifically might be possible. We might not understand WHY a decision making algorythem becomes 'intellgent' and 'self aware'.. but I would not be surprised if we could mimic it artifically. We might never do so.
If we can't.. that is just a lack of our cleverness.

And..??? so...??? What am I to gather from this statement? You call your shoes taters or shoes? Physics is a science of definitions. One can not make up they're own definition and expect to be taken seriously. The mind is the illusion of a thinker behind the thought or self that is the result of electrical activity and sensorium of the nuerological systems in concious sentient organisms. It is totally dependant on that system that consists in part of protiens, glucose, as well as the force of electromagnitism and the other forces of nature that manifests reality. Bullshit. Dont try and do a Texas backstep on this. You are composed of atoms. The atoms that make up the thing you think is you are occupying space on this planet, which is orbiting a star that supplys the energy and light that allows you to exist. Without those things there would be no YOU and hence no mind, soul, or what ever you care to call it.

Since science is a human thing and subject to all our faults and prejudices. It will never be any more or less falible than we are.
Science is flawed because it's source is. That is a truth we cannot escape.
To suggest otherwise would imply a BELIEF that science is infalible.
It begs the question how can something infalible come from a falible source but that is a whole other topic.
Now I shall use your phrase in the following context.The scientific comunity recognises that the scientific method was invented by humans.
All observations are made by humans.
All conclusions are arrived at by humans.
We are the judge of the validity and value of all that is science.
Now when asking people to use science to define it's source.
The answer is....We simply don't know yet.Then these conclusions are all derived from a source that is not known yet?
Remember that science is a "thought process" before you bite into this one.
I will stand by my quote.
Science is painfully at a loss to prove it's source.
Since it is of the people, by the people and for the people.My topic is after all about us. Hence the reason for the topic. If I understood you right- your telling me we might obtain a model of something we have no definition for, using a method based on a source that is undetermined?
This is where I personally will allways have problems discussing science. I recognise it for the tool it is. I am not so sure some others do. I have a problem with this definition of force since we speak of the force of gravity and electomagnetic forces. This would seem a misuse of the word by this definition. However it is precisely how I would like to use it.
Yes a different perspective is taken there even though force is used freely both ways even by physicists. It's a human thing
I would gladly accept something that would appear more palitable to people. A causal agent may be more palatable but leaves much to be desired. The human language is at a loss here without using spiritual terms and If we go there we might as well stick with force. If someone has a better idea I would welcome it if it helps people to at least consider my topic.
I would like to see science look at the force of us just like it looks at the other forces it deals with. A way to describe something we can only detect by the effects it leaves behind. We do not speak of gravity or electromagnetism as causal agents. We call them forces.
Just thinkin out loud. Considering that science is only one way to look at things and only an aspect of us it will only give us one kind of perspective. Science has no meaning. We give science meaning. We use meaning to understand ourselves. Science is not that tool. So there is no doubt in my mind. When you say "science" you are reffering to an aspect of us of course. You do realise that don't you? It is not sepparate. So this suggests the possibility of using one aspect us to invent a complete model of us.
Then we would have a complete model of one aspect of us. "just thinking out loud"

how old are you?you seem to have a lot to learn...

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.

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.

2ice_baked_tatersSo you say. The difficulty you have is to show the evidence that your statement is indeed valid by logical connection between your assertion that there is a "force of me" that, in fact, affect physical phenomena,
and the forces that physical phenomena operate by.How does this force manifest its abilities to physically manipulate events in the world?This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-03-14 12:02 AM

How wonderful for those of you who agree with each other.
we all have our opinions.This is not a persuasive argument. My context is clear. My position is clear. But for you That would be the "you" you so conveniently keep refering to.
It's allways all about "you", isn't it....lol Yes that was my point. Note I have requested suggestions for a better description. However....nothing in science is precise. Everything is within acceptable tolerances. Precise is only a matter of perspective. So for your and my clarification we will try:
Scientific method is a thought process derived by "you's" and used by many "you's" to establish facts and general laws concerning the physical world through observation and testing by "you's" The results which are agreed upon by a majority of "you's" before being accepted as some sort of "empirical fact" by "you's" under the context of the thought process "scientific method" which "you's" invented.That was kinda fun
Anywho if the term "you" I have used does not work for "you" in this context I have established please feel free to offer reasonable alternatives. I am open to suggestions. I believe people or more in our established context "you's" use thought. According to who?
Am I understanding you correctly?
Sounds like self determined superiority to me
This is the problem with the idealistic conception of science. It involves all these little "you's"Since science is a human thing and subject to all our faults and prejudices. It will never be any more or less falible than we are. I will plug your definition into your senctence.
Quote "And both the [rate of change of momentum with respect to time] of [rate of change of momentum with respect to time]and [rate of change of momentum with respect to time][rate of change of momentum with respect to time]'s are defined as just that."Yes, I see now how this clears things up.
Hence my use of the word force This is a common mistake. We give us perspective. science is just a tool. the one described above.
Unless you are suggesting that science is somehow above/beyond or apart from us and affects us in some independant way.
Help me out here. Science has no meaning. It deals with "facts"
We bring meaning to anything within the context of our established "you"Viscious little circle aint it? Our physical selves. What about the "you"?My idea is an attempt.
To see it you must change your perspective This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 02:13 AMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 02:20 AMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 02:22 AM

Defined by who?
Show me gravity. I wanna see it.
Better yet define it.
NRW tried that. I pointed out the problem that occurs.
The same occurs when we try to describe the "force" that is us Is this your opinion? So this is your belief?
Surely you are not professing to know this as fact.
Houston...we have a problem
And on a truly human level.....relax Author no need to get all bent.
No topic is harder to discuss than this except the higher power thing.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-14-2006 03:17 AM