Counter-indications and refutation of a feasibility model

An information-processing feasibility model is successful if it works, i.e. if it can simulate the phenomena to be described. Conversely, it can be refuted with a counter-example that shows the simulation to be incomplete or inadequate.

• Lack of reference to gravity and the floor leads to absurd behaviour
• a beetle might continue walking motions when upside down, but mammals would not.

Ideally, the feasibility model should support hands-on interactive testing over the Web by readers/viewers, i.e. independent verification.

Feasibility studies use engineering rather than academic approaches to supporting and refuting models. Academic citations are generally not required to see whether a new type of airplane will fly. For a very complex model, with many variations in behaviour, statistics may be used, but generally not for simple models.

• Simplifying assumptions are important and must be made explicit
• For simplification, I am using a single eye with a single line of vision (Cyclops).
• Scope and boundary conditions must be explicit, e.g. what phenomena are to be explained, and at what level of detail.
• Major constraints should also be made explicit
  • DNA imposes storage constraints for innate skills, and thus it is important to estimate the bits required to represent the skills, and to explore methods of compression.
  • self-imposed constraints include not requiring a racial consciousness, and not requiring extra-sensory perception.

  For Web-based simulation models, the models can be made interactive and thus allow some level of independent verification.