What would a person be who doesn’t respond to internal preferences or external incentives? Someone with no desires whatsoever or who doesn’t sense, think, or plan to make the most of opportunities. Not much of a person at all. Thus, there can be no falsifying of the observation that people are organisms that adjust their behaviour to take advantage of their interests and environment. That framework is biological and psychological rather than economic. It has no distinctive economic content at all.

That, then, is a fine way to make economics scientific: just borrow the biological picture of people as animals with rudimentary instincts for self-preservation, and call that picture the essence of economics. I think not. Animals likewise have preferences and respond to environmental signals. Does that make them economic actors?

And no, the framework/definition wouldn’t be falsified if a monopsonist wouldn’t adjust the level of employment, based on the pressure of a higher minimum wage. There’s no direct perception of the preferences and incentives, but only how they're understood in terms of the person's background knowledge. So, the monopsonist might think differently in his long-term planning, which would account for his lack of behavioural adjustment. The economist would then say his thinking is suboptimal, so that only when reasoning is perfect would the interests and incentives dictate such and such a response in the market.

Thus, there’s no decisive test of this trivial, pseudo-economic framework you’ve presented.

And I’m just going to pretend you didn’t make those remarks about natural selection.