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.

Again, you are not replying to what is written. Just repeating.

a = measureDistance("left")
b = measureDistance("right")
if a > b then choice = "right"
else if b > a then choice = "left"
else choice = "01" // used here to make sense with earlier example "01" == "doubt"

if choice == "left" or choice == "right" steerTo(choice)
else steerTo(takeNextItemFromAPreviouslyGeneratedListOfDirections() )

What do you do when a==b?

choice = "01" , that is: doubt
Then in this case the system to select a direction in a pseudo-random way, by selecting left or right from a previously generated list.

again, first read carefully before you comment. It is all there.

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

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

I don't think there's any reason to assume a detemrinistic system cannot have 'doubt' implemented into a thing in that system. Doubt is a feature of a model, not of the system itself - so as long as you can implement a model in a deterministic system, that model can have measures of doubt and uncertainty. I'm actually pretty sure LLMs have already learned to internally represent various degrees of certainty in particular situations.

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.

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, I'm not the guy to refuse a friendly request. But please debate with me on the things I say. That is how it works, you cannot only repeat your own viewpoint, you are asked to change your perspective temporarily, look around corners. It is also how I debate with you, I've shown multiple times that I am willing to take your position. Here is my logic, point by point, please use these points in your reply:

1) OP says, doubt : an experience of uncertainty in a situation. From that (and other observations) it follows there must be a free mind.
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.
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.
5) This shows that your OP depends on consciousness.
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)
7) I also wrote extensively about how I personally perceive a doubt and how I come to a decision in those cases. No "mind" involved here whatsoever, it feels more like how the computer program works.
8) One of the arguments you make is that your OP is about humans. But that is not even in your OP.

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.

So you agree that the conclusion follows from OP? — MoK

No, I don't agree with OP. One of the things that makes it wrong is that both input and output side contain some version of consciousness. It is like dividing by zero. You can prove 5 / 0 = 2 / 0 bij cross multiplication, that results in "true". That doesn't mean 5 = 2.

One other thing I see is that you describe a situation of doubt in which you can make a decision, from which it follows that there is a free mind. The doubt is just there for hiding the fact that you say "because I can make a free decision, it follows there is a free mind (not explained by the deterministic brain)" Not much of a statement there, except of the old problem of free will.

What is consciousness to you? — MoK

Consciousness = First person perspective. Therefore the subject, it cannot be treated as an object. We can use language to point to it, but it cannot be used in logical reasoning, like dividing by zero.

that is the end of discussion. — MoK

What I find remarkable is that only this time, after I gave you these points, it felt like a real discussion - one where we agree to disagree, but that is fine. I find it remarkable because I mentioned all of these points before. Somehow you couldn't organize them yourself. Most likely because you were a bit preoccupied with your OP. I almost had to force you to look at it differently. Not a problem. But next time we engage, I will hold you to this same standard of looking at things from different angles.

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

What are LLMs? Large language models? — MoK

Yes

I actually did provide two arguments. This is something you have to get used to, when somebody else attacks your position, it often feels like what they say doesn't make sense. But you cannot just say "you are wrong", or "you didn't gave a reason". Then you are evading the discussion and come out as the weaker party. You did this several times already.

If you want a discussion, what you need to do is try to understand the others' position as good as you can, and then find a weak spot. This requires an open mind and creativity.

In my case I said that any logic that contains a reference to consciousness cannot be trusted. Earlier I gave a link to an article to prove my point. There are several things you can do: find one single counterexample of some logic that uses consciousness as an argument and is perfectly valid. Or go to the article and get some counter arguments there.

I also said that your proposition is basically the good old "free will" dilemma, wrapped in the term "doubt". I leave this to you, but there are ways to shoot a hole in that one too.