I agree with most of your statements that beauty is a sign of a better life that helps us to survive and evolve better. Women have larger hips and that makes them attractive to men. Women with larger hips can give birth easily and through evolution they became attractive to men. Like (attractiveness) or dislike, however, are extrinsic features of an object rather than intrinsic ones. A beautiful woman looks beautiful in the eyes of both men and women and that is the intrinsic feature. A beautiful woman may misbehave and people dislike her and that is the extrinsic feature. To summarize I think your answer is about the extrinsic features of an object rather than the intrinsic features so I think your answer does not address why an object is intrinsically beautiful. Let me know what you think so we can discuss things further.

If the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain, can your brain construct the redness into pinkness or greenness? — Corvus

No, the color you experience depends on your sensory system, your eyes in this case, and how neurons are connected in your visual cortex.

Does it mean your brain can construct the colour of roses into any colour you want to construct? :chin: — Corvus

No, I have never meant that.

The redness of the rose belongs to the rose, not to me or my experience. — Corvus

No, the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain. The flower does not have any particular color at all so it is just the feature of your experience.

Well yes, I assumed that was what you wanted to say. But I was hoping you'd have some argument or rationale for saying it. — unenlightened

I already argued for beauty and ugliness to be an intrinsic feature of experience in OP so they are objective (person-independent). What is left are like and dislike that are subjective so person-dependent and therefore extrinsic.

Great example! I feel the same way about goats. But is it that I am blind to the sexual attractiveness of goats, whereas other goats can appreciate the intrinsic attractiveness, or is it that attractiveness is in some essential way relative to the observer, where handsomeness is not? — unenlightened

I think that attractiveness is the extrinsic feature of the experience whereas handsomeness is the intrinsic one.

Could you demonstrate the point with some real life examples? Thanks. — Corvus

You have the experience of a red rose when you are looking at one. The experience is gone if redness and other features of your Qualia are gone.

Experience and Qualia are inseparable. It is not correct to say that the experience comes first and the Qualia comes after.

Nope. Qualia comes after experience as perceived qualities of the objects. Qualia is not part of experience. — Corvus

Just no. Could you have any experience without Qualia?

Personally I don't really have a problem with infinite regress. :wink: — Tom Storm

I don't have any problem with it either! :razz:

Isn't this false dilemma fallacy? — Tom Storm

I don't think so. The features of our experience are either intrinsic or extrinsic.

Might beauty not be the product of both subjective and objective factors? — Tom Storm

They are.

You're suggesting there are only two options here. 1) Intrinsic experience or 2) subjective experiences. — Tom Storm

No, I am suggesting that the features of our experiences are either intrinsic or extrinsic.

Might beauty not arise from the interaction we have with an object? — Tom Storm

Yes, beauty arises from our interactions with objects.

Also could beauty (and any general agreement we have about this) not simply be an intersubjective relationship (many of us share) - a contingent product of culture, experience and evolutionary factors? — Tom Storm

If beauty was completely contingent then we face the regress. I think that the effect of culture for example is extrinsic.

Experience itself has no properties. — Corvus

Of course, any experience has a set of properties, so-called Qualia.

As distinguished from extrinsic features of our experience? What would they be? — unenlightened

That is an excellent question! I think like and dislike for example are extrinsic features of our experience. Let me give you an example: A man could be handsome but he would not be sexually attractive to you since you are straight. Does that make sense to you? I am open to discuss this.

Fantastic! Can you delve further? Why would symmetry, curvature, etc be beautiful? — Philosophim

That is an excellent question that made me think for a while! In the end, I concluded that it is what it is. When things come together in a specific configuration, the object looks beautiful otherwise ugly. Perhaps one person who is an expert in the philosophy of art can elaborate further.

I think it is a mixture of properties of an object, like symmetry, curvature, color, and the like.

I think beauty and ugliness are innate parts of a healthy human experience. — Philosophim

I think beauty and ugliness are universal features of the experience, whether humans' experience, aliens', or animals'. Something beautiful is beautiful in the eyes of anybody.

Beauty and ugliness are features of the objects in the universe. — Corvus

Yes, and no. Although beauty and ugliness are features of objects, things like ideas, arts (music for example that is not an object), etc. could also be beautiful or ugly. That is why I used experience instead of object since a beautiful object seems beautiful but beauty is not the feature of the objects only.

We perceive and judge them. They are not intrinsic features of our experience. Experience captures what is given to us by the universe. Experience is a blank sheet with no features. — Corvus

Of course, experience has lots of features. How could recognize something is beautiful if your experience has no feature?

It matters. How could your experience help you in a situation when the outcomes of options are not clear?

There are several variants of presentism, but all of them posit a preferred moment in time.
Growing block says that past and present events exist, future ones do not. Moving spotlight says they all exist, but the 'spotlight' travels across them, making one of the moments preferred. Your variant has not been discussed, but you seem to have not three but four categories of ontology: past, present near future, further future. — noAxioms

I have three categories of ontology: Past (does not exist), present near future (exists), and future (future excluding near future which does not exist).

As there is between any cause and effect events, unless you posit discreet time and/or discreet events. Point is, it doesn't stop the asteroid from being a cause of the extinction effect. I say 'a cause' and not 'the cause' because there are very few effects that are the result of only one cause. — noAxioms

So you agree that there was a chain of causes and effects between the asteroid collision and extinction of dinosaurs?

What you seem to be proposing is a sort of discreet paired presentism, where there are discreet states A B C etc. State A is the present for some finite duration of time. During that time, state B ('the immediate future') comes into being while state A is still there. The difference between the two is 'existing change' as you put it. Some time after B comes into existence, A ceases to exist and B becomes the present, and then C can come into existence. So it goes on like that, with one or two adjacent discreet states existing at a given time, and if there are two, they are labeled 'present' and 'immediate future'.
Am I close with that, or am totally reading this wrong? — noAxioms

Let's stick to three events, A, B, and C. A causes B (B exists in the immediate future) at now. At the next moment, A ceases to exist, and B exists at now and causes C (C exists in the immediate future). Etc.

Respectable effort. Cause and effect (CE) is a convenient fiction, very useful and convenient. But I don't think you're getting the point here. The problem is that you define CE in terms of the observer, in the eye of the beholder so to speak. But take away the observer and what exactly is left? — tim wood

I didn't define cause and effect in terms of observer.

A familiar example from a book may help clarify. A car rolls over on the road, what caused it? "Bad road geometry," says the civil engineer. "Bad suspension," says the auto designer. "Speeding," says the policeman. — tim wood

Maybe one of them or perhaps a combination.

I used the maze example to ensure our past experiences cannot affect the decision.

Effect and change - Ball 1's speed is reduced by X m/s and Ball 2's speed is increased by Y m/s. — T Clark

No, that is only the effect.

The cause: Ball1 hits Ball 2 and at the same time Ball 2 hits Ball 1.
The effect: Ball 1's speed is reduced and Ball 2's speed is increased as a result of the collision.
The change: The difference between the speed of Ball 1 before and after the collision and the difference between the speed of Ball 2 before and after the collision as well.

Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).

You're just getting tangled up in words. The effect is not some separate entity, it is the change. — T Clark

No, the cause and effect come together to allow a change.

The logic here has countless fallacies.
You seem to be presuming presentism (only the present time exists), as evidenced by the A-series language if nothing else, and yet this is not explicitly called out. — noAxioms

No, I am not talking about presentism or A-series of time since to me both now and immediate future exist whereas in presentism or A-series of time only now exist.

OK, You seem to be speaking of change over time as opposed to any other kind of change which may not have a cause/effect relationship. — noAxioms

No, I am talking about a change with a cause-and-effect relationship.

Does it? — noAxioms

Sure change exists. Doesn't it?

This seems to contradict the assumption of presentism which says that only the present exists, and for change to exist, two different states need to exist. Why must change exist if there exists only the one state? — noAxioms

Sure we cannot have any change if there is only one state.

Not 'therefore' since this does not follow by any of the above, but yes, by definition, cause and effect lay at different points in time. — noAxioms

Cause and effect can lay at the same point of time yet in this case we don't have any change. I had to exclude this case to make sure that cause and effect must lay at different points in time if we want to have a change.

Nonsequitur. Cause: Asteroid hitting Earth. Effect, years later, dinosaurs are extinct, hardly the immediate future of the asteroid event. — noAxioms

There is a chain of causes and effects between the asteroid hitting Earth and dinosaurs going extinct.

Also, 'immidiate future' is totally undefined. It sort of implies adjacent moments in time with no moments in between, a sort of discreet model of time that 1) has not been posited, and 2) apparently contradicts premise zero, that of presentism, that only one moment in time exists. — noAxioms

By immediate future, I mean the next point in time whether time is discrete or continuous is off-topic.

The effect does not exist if the future does not exist. It being immediate is irrelevant. — noAxioms

It is relevant.

Again, non-sequitur since you've not established that both cause and effect necessarily exist (and also the lack of definition of 'immediate future'). — noAxioms

If effect does not exist when cause exists then cause ceases to exist when time passes so there cannot be any effect.

Now if we discard the presentism premise, then we can attempt to follow the same argument without the A-series wording. — noAxioms

I am not talking about A-series of time.

Now this much makes sense. — noAxioms

So you agree?

That part still does not follow, per the dinosaur counterexample. — noAxioms

As I mentioned before, there is a chain of causes and effects for the dinosaur example.

I am sorry but there is nothing left to discuss.

Well, you are not providing an argument as to why OP is invalid. I think that is the end of the discussion.

1) OP says, doubt : an experience of uncertainty in a situation. From that (and other observations) it follows there must be a free mind. — Carlo Roosen

So you agree that the conclusion follows from OP?

2) My problem is that "experience" and "mind" are both related to consciousness. There is so much debate about this topic, not leading to any useful conclusions. This post says it all: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15512/logical-proof-that-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-impossible-to-solve . Basically it says: when consciouness is involved, logical thinking is not capable to draw conclusions. Wrong tools for the job. — Carlo Roosen

I am familiar with the hard problem of consciousness. What is consciousness to you?

3) So to test you logic, I proposed another, temporal, definition of doubt, one that does not require consciousness. A mechanical "doubt", so to speak. This alternative definition: doubt = "a situation of uncertainty".
4) That is where my little program comes in. It is very simple of course, it just shows you can make a choice even if the both options are equally preferable. — Carlo Roosen

Probably I wrote around a thousand codes during my career. Don't take me wrong I know what you are talking about.

5) This shows that your OP depends on consciousness. — Carlo Roosen

Sure. I am talking about a conscious agent who has a doubt in a situation.

6) To me that means that I lose all interest in the matter, I have a different view on consciousness that shows why thinking/words are incapable of making conclusions about it, quite similar to the article I mentioned in 2) — Carlo Roosen

If you have no interest in discussing OP which crucially depends on consciousness then that is the end of discussion.

I don't think there's any reason to assume a detemrinistic system cannot have 'doubt' implemented into a thing in that system. — flannel jesus

I would use uncertain if the system is not conscious otherwise I use doubt. I agree that a deterministic system could reach a state of uncertainty or doubt.

I'm actually pretty sure LLMs have already learned to internally represent various degrees of certainty in particular situations. — flannel jesus

What are LLMs? Large language models?

ok enough is enough. You are not discussing, you are just repeating and not trying to understand things in context. — Carlo Roosen

I am open to discussing OP further if you wish.

So your algorithm is biased and not free. What does this have to do with OP which discusses that humans have minds?

What do you do when a==b?

All he is saying is that there exists an exploratory approach to these kind of problems. You start with an idea, try it out in simulation, and continue from there, until you have something you like. — Carlo Roosen

So you start with an idea! Don't you?

First thing first, I am talking about humans and their capacity to freely decide. It then follows that we have minds. Secondly, your example of a computer being in a doubtful situation because a variable has the value "01" does not make any sense at all.

That is because experience is in your definition, and you do not accept my example. — Carlo Roosen

Your example just does not make any sense to me. You said that the value 01 or whatever resembles a doubt. What do you want me to accept?

Do you mean that the AI should be able to solve problems?

Again, you are reacting emotionally without really trying to understand what I am saying. I am not your enemy, I try to make your idea more clear and getting it more precise. — Carlo Roosen

I didn't say that you are my enemy. I would be happy to accept the error in my reasoning if you can show it. All I said was that my argument is not what you are saying.

I am saying that without the need for "experience" your logic fails. — Carlo Roosen

But you were not able to define a doubtful situation in which experience is not needed.

What do you mean by showing intelligence?

Look, you shove a term "experience" in your definition of doubt, and end up with a proof of "mind" at the other end. And you do this without explicitely pointing out what these two terms mean and how they relate. That is not a clear line of logic, it is confusing. — Carlo Roosen

No, my argument does not work like that, there is experience therefore there is a mind.

Instead, if you would define "doubt" without the need for "experience", you end up with my example program and there is no need for a mind at all. — Carlo Roosen

So according to you assigning a variable to be X which is arbitrary means that the computer has doubt.

He most likely means that we can try out different ideas until it starts thinking in a way that we like. — Carlo Roosen

Trying different ideas means that you have something in your mind about how the simulation should work. Also, what do you mean by "it starts thinking"?

That opens a can of worms. Okay, let others continue this. I've done what I can. — Carlo Roosen

Pardon me! That does not open a can of worms but clears up the discussion. If you are interested in discussing mind and consciousness you at least need to have a basic knowledge about them. This wiki page provides the basics for you.