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.

One of the things that you need to make clear is whether doubt requires consciousness. You use the word "experience" in your definition, so it seems, yes. — Carlo Roosen

Yes.

You end up with the conclusion that, based on this definition, there must be a mind. — Carlo Roosen

The existence of experience does not mean that there is a mind. The existence of doubt together with the ability that you can decide in a doubtful situation means that you have a mind given the fact that the brain is a deterministic entity.

"01" is just a number. Isn't it? Are you saying that when a variable is "01" then the computer has doubt?

"01" does not represent a doubtful situation as I defined it in OP and gave an example of it.

You need to be more careful with your argumentation. You cannot just say the opposite of what I said. I gave an explanation of what I meant, you didn't. "In my program there is a memory location reserved. It contains data. The interpreter or compiler has a check and generates an error if you want to print it before you define it." — Carlo Roosen

No, again undefined variable in your code does not represent a doubtful situation. I precisely defined doubt in OP and also gave an example of a situation in which an agent has doubt.

In my program there is a memory location reserved. It contains data. The interpreter or compiler has a check and generates an error if you want to print it before you define it. But undefined means the same as doubt. — Carlo Roosen

No, undefined does not mean doubt.

So, why can't it be part of a deterministic system? The code example I gave is deterministic. — Carlo Roosen

I already explained. A deterministic system goes from one state to a unique state later so at each point in time there is only one state available to the system. There are two states to choose from when we have a doubt though.

define x
for a = 1 to 1000000000
y = y + 1 / a
next a
x = 2 + y

x is "in doubt" while calculating y — Carlo Roosen

No, x is not determined while the program is calculating y.

Doubt is a mental state.

I went back to your definition in the OP, and based on that, of course, I have doubts. Right now, for example: Should I respond to your post and have my name appear two or three times on the homepage? Some people already say I post too often. — Carlo Roosen

It is great progress that we agree that you can have doubt. Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic system. That is true since a deterministic system moves from one state to another unique state later. So only one state is available for a deterministic system at any given time. There are two states available to choose from when we have doubts though.

It can be simulated even if one doesn't know how it works. — noAxioms

This means that you didn't simulate any system in your life. Did you?

My hypothesis is that language plays a key role in thinking. With "I love sushi" I have some debate about that, there are people without language abilities that still show intelligence. So many sides to the topic... — Carlo Roosen

I don't think that the process of thinking requires language. The thinking process is nothing but a neural process in which neurons fire until a pattern is recognized. The process is terminated when the further process does not change the pattern that is recognized. You are not aware of neural processes which occur in your brain when you think. You just become aware of the outcome of the neural process so-called idea when a pattern is recognized and the process of thinking is terminated.

I have to say that language is important when you want to communicate with an AI. That is true since for communication you need to provide input for an AI and receive output. The input should be meaningful for the AI and the AI should provide a meaningful output as well based on the outcome of the thinking process. How to make an AI recognize a sentence and provide a meaningful sentence is another topic.

If we know how humans think, we can simulate thinking using a neural network.

I don't have answers to all questions as well. It is however strange to me that a person who doesn't have doubt can define it.

Haha I don't know how I should read your question. Do you mean that I sound so confident that I would never have a doubt? I have been called arrogant here. — Carlo Roosen

My question was simple. Have you ever had a doubt? Yes or no?

That doesn't change the universe into an object itself. — noAxioms

I didn't say that the universe is an object.

Have you ever had a doubt?

Read up on Bernardo Kastrup. I can’t break it down for you in a forum post. Try this https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/mind-over-matter/ — Wayfarer

I read the article. It does not explain what he means by that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Do you agree that his statement is contradictory? He stated that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe yet he claims that computer is not conscious.

Do some research. — Wayfarer

On which topic?

Consciousness is fundamental: Kastrup believes that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, not a product of complex physical systems like the human brain. This means that AI, which is a product of human design and operates on physical principles, cannot inherently possess consciousness. — Wayfarer

Well, that seems contradictory to me. Everything should be conscious if consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. So a computer that simulates intelligence is also conscious. What is its subjective experience is however the subject of discussion. Its subjective experience could be simple low-level that allows the computer to run the code. I highly doubt that its subjective experience is high-level such as thoughts though even if its behavior indicates that it is intelligent.

Did you read the OP? If yes, what is your opinion about it? I defined all the necessary terms.

No problem. Feel free to ask if you have another question.

As you suggest, at the level of reality whatever the heck doubt is, is not what we're assessing here. A prehistoric human, like other animals lacked this 'artificial' autonomous process. When it faced a divergence in a path, it either used its senses and responded in accordance with its conditioning to follow the 'right' path, or it just moved forward indifferently. It did not have the pronoun to attach either congratulations for a right choice nor doubt with respect thereto. — ENOAH

I think even a mouse can freely decide when it is in a maze.

We are assessing a thing we have over eons constructed and reconstructed, and transmitted from generation to generation, such that whatever real doubt is, has been displaced by it. The 'doubt' we are assessing is not that biochemistry, but the deterministic movement of images constructed and projected into this world of moving images--not world of natural conditioning where the chemistry is at play. And I realize they function together on a feedback loop, but we're really talking about the surface, the world of images, where d-o-u-b-t abides, with all of its triggering powers. I'm confident we're not going to find
d-o-u-b-t in any chemicals. — ENOAH

We know that doubt is the result of the biochemical processes in the brain. Doubt is a sort of conscious phenomenon and all conscious phenomena are correlated with biochemical processes in the brain.

I'm saying (oversimplified for space and time) those images move deterministically. For humans born into history, confronted by a divergence in a path, if one path appears rugged and dangerous, the other smooth, and these are the only factors, reason, moving images of a specific variety, autonomously gets to work, and the easy path is selected. If a given person happens to defy reason, they did not. Their 'reason,' just as autonomously applied as conventional reason, the rugged so-called choice was triggered by moving images of xyz autonomously moving them to take the rugged path. Finally if one cannot choose, and 'reads' into experience, moving images called doubt, that too, is pushed upon the body at that moment, e.g., a balance of xyz's or conflicting structures, just as autonomously playing on the next step/no step as reason or defiance did. — ENOAH

I used the example of the maze to show that doubt is real. We are not dealing with a doubtful situation in which one path is smooth and another one is rugged.

So MoK is talking about only 'things' (objects). The universe is not such a 'thing', so the conclusion from the OP is relevant only to objects, not the universe, per this restricted definition of 'nothing' to mean literally 'no thing'. — noAxioms

The universe is a collection of objects so OP applies to the universe.

By reference to an initial state, and by use of past tense, you imply that some time (the earliest time), it could have been finite, but that it isn't finite now. That requires, at some moment, a transition from finite to infinite.

The universe (our 4D spacetime) is considered to be infinite in all four dimensions, and bounded at one end of the time dimension. — noAxioms

I have an argument for the whole being limitless, which you can find here. My main problem however is that I don't have any argument to show that the whole is filled by material so there could be areas filled by material and others that are empty.

If God can always have existed without a cause, then so can have the universe. — Hanover

That is my point. So, we are dealing with two scenarios here unless one does not exclude that the universe have existed since beginning of time one cannot conclude that God exists.

They can't claim that because it violates premise #1, which was my point. — Hanover

Why does it violate premise #1?

But I do not agree. It cannot go from finite to infinite. There's no scaling that would do that. For one, it would be transitioning at some moment from having a size to not having one. — noAxioms

We didn't say that the universe went from finite to infinite.

Much easier to say the universe exists. That cuts out one regression step. — noAxioms

We need a justification to exclude God.

How then does doubt emerge, if not by the push of history? Is doubt arising, out of the blue? — ENOAH

We don't know how doubt emerges from biochemical processes in the brain. We also don't know about the emergence of thought, qualia, and intentionality.

:up:

How could your decision be based on history when you have doubt?

Neither is the universe. — noAxioms

Are you an idealist?

There are 'things' in this universe seemingly without a cause (proof lacking). Unruh radiation is a fine example, predicted a long way back, and seemingly finally detected recently. — noAxioms

What Unruh radiation has to do with our debate?

This premise is self-contradictory.

If what you mean by "whatever begins to exist" is that there are certain whatevers that "begin" in a creation ex nihilo sort of way, i.e. something from nothing, then you've violated the other condition of this premise, which is that every whatever "has a cause."

That is, you are saying in a single breath that some things just come to be without a cause but all things have a cause.

This contradiction becomes more evident when you seek to locate the elusive first uncaused cause (i.e. God). That is, this argument doesn't lead you to finding God, but it leads you to realizing that even God fails to meet your conditions because God is a whatever that must also have a cause because you told me everything has a cause. — Hanover

They claim that God didn't begin to exist but exists.

The error is in the logic. Premise one is necessarily false. For there to be an uncaused cause, you must state that some whatevers are not caused, which would then allow for the universe to be one of those whatever. — Hanover

I agree with what you stated. But here it seems that you object to the second premise, not the first one.

:100: :up:

Why should it not? Its uncaused. Something uncaused has no reason for being. Which also means it has no reason for NOT being. — Philosophim

So?

Think about the previous statement carefully. If there's no reason for something existing, then there's no reason that it has to have existed infinitely. — Philosophim

Why?

Meaning something that is unexplained would exist, and we would know it exists by its being. But there would be no prior reason for its explanation beyond its simple being. Meaning, if something exists in this world that is unexplained, there is no reason why it should have existed finitely or infinitely. — Philosophim

I am not saying that the universe in its initial state was infinite. It could be finite or infinite.