Hm. You have a strange way of phrasing it. What I'm doing is defining a mechanism that *might* generate the phenomenon of interest. It's typical simulation. If it *cannot* generate the phenomenon, then that falsifies this mechanism, which is what we want, falsifiable hypotheses.
On 6/18/20 5:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: > So you are defining a mechanism that by definition is mechanistic (perhaps > with some randomness sprinkled over it) and then saying that it may look to > some people like it seems to have free will? If that's what you're doing, > what are you claiming that demonstrates? If that's not what you're doing, I'm > afraid I still don't understand. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
