[FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

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:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 7:53 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

 

 

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> > 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200618/c6028483/attachment.html>