[onewhowatches]

No, you are just trying different ways to move the argument into unfalsifiability and keep it there. You need the argument to be unfalsifiable to maintain your mental paradigm. You continue to claim that 'experiences' are equivalent to facts in the experiment because you need the argument to be unfalsifiable. I reject that because 'experiences' are not facts of the argument.

Irrelevant. The only inputs that are relevant are the facts. 'Experiences' are not facts of the argument.

You can wish that away as much as you like. It doesn't make any difference that people's actions are based one what they experience in the past, regardless of stimuli given in the present.

Or can you devise an experiment where people's past experience can have absolutely no impact on the decisions they make in the present, based on given stimuli?

[GourmetDan]

"You can wish that away as much as you like. It doesn't make any difference that people's actions are based one what they experience in the past, regardless of stimuli given in the present."

You can wish that away into unfalsifiability as much as you like. It doesn't change the fact that people making different decisions based on the same facts shows the supernatural, non-determinant basis of the mind.