I think we have yet to agree on the phenomenon that we are explaining. Is it a first person phenomenon or a third person one?
N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 7:53 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: 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. What do you mean by "generate the phenomenon"? If the phenomenon is non-existent, it can't be generated. Even if that weren't a problem, who is to judge whether "the phenomenon" had been generated? And how is that judgment made? On the other hand, how do you establish that "it *cannot* generate the phenomenon"? That sounds like a pretty hard thing to establish on the basis of empirical evidence. This all seems to be digging a deeper hole.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
