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 give 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.

I hope you will reply ... Remember I thought about your definition of "doubt" and admitted that my answer was based on my own definition and not yours. Then I changed my answer. It doesn't hurt what you say you're wrong.

I am sorry but there is nothing left to discuss.

Or does some internal neural mechanism in your subconscious "toss a coin"? — jgill

I think MoK is saying here that if you know the outcomes of a decision, you can form reasons for acting in a certain way. This means the act is not free in the sense that reasons impel us to act in one way or another - the brain is deterministic, and the reasons arise from the brain.

Alternatively, when you are ignorant and have doubt, you can choose freely because reasons do not impel you to act in a certain way. However, since the brain is deterministic, this free act must arise from a mind that can freely choose. — ToothyMaw

Exactly right. :100: :up: — MoK

Coming from another discussion about perception in which I went into the up to date research on consciousness with "predictive coding". If our mind creates a mental representation with generative means for the purpose of prediction, then our mind will always strive for predicting the best outcome.

A person with a certain irrational belief might have their brains predict, even on an unconscious level, that "left is always the right choice", regardless of the random nature they're presented with. Imagine if there were two forks and the first reaffirmed that left was true, such a person would choice left without a doubt, even if it's wrong.

The issue with the doubtfully ignorant choosing freely is that a choice which we cannot find reasons for, even a random internally manifested coin toss, is never actually random. We always choose out of bias and this bias is always a sum of our prior experiences forming a present predictive function for our navigational actions. Therefore, we always make an "informed choice", even when we don't have enough information or an experience of making such choice out of information.

So doubt can be described as our predictive functions having to decide between choices too close to each other in nature, forming a fear response as the decision takes longer than other choices. However, we are always deterministic regardless of what is happening and we're always leaning towards some path based on the sum of prior experiences.

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

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

Doesn't matter, being human means having past experiences and even if those past experiences seemingly have nothing to do with the choice at hand, as I described, there are always factors that pull towards a choice. Even if the line of causality is quantifiable, the mechanisms of how we choose are far more elaborate and complex behind what we're conscious of.

The example can be used as an analogy for a philosophical concept, but it can't be applied to human choice in reality as everything in our past affects our choices. And the feeling of doubt is seemingly pointing to a lack of, or contractionary memories enough to form a cognitive dissonance between the two paths, stalling the predictive function that underpins our cognitive functions. It can lead to people using seemingly nonsense reasons to choose a path, even if they're not aware of it. A headache on the right side of the head, choosing the left path; a smear of different shade of the stone on the walls of the right, choosing that one. None of it really conscious, but becoming the only correlation we have to what's stored in our memories and in such doubt lead to our instincts choosing whatever have some correlation, even if that connection is absolutely irrational. Therefor we cannot really make internalized coin tosses for choices as everything we do that we think comes out of random choice is never random for us. And none of this is a conscious process we are truly aware of while acting and navigating reality around us.

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

How could your experience help you in a situation when the outcomes of options are not clear? — MoK

Because we're evolved beings and the evolution of our consciousness requires a logical reason for why it is as it is. That logic is not coming from nature just flipping a switch that let's it think about itself. It evolved an evolutionary trait; the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The entire process we experience is setting us up with better and better capability to handle unknown situations. The more experience the better we survive. The more situations, the better we adapt. A totally unknown or uncalculated situation creates a fear; the fear of the unknown, which is probably the deepest emotional response we have outside sexuality. Why? Because it's our prediction not being able to handle a situation it has no clear generated model scenario for.

But even beyond that explanation, you don't even have to go into those details about our biology to find the simple psychological logic that it doesn't help us. Have you not seen enough examples in the real world of people who make extremely stupid decisions in face of an unknown situation? Our experiences are ALWAYS trying to navigate us through "a maze", it's how our consciousness works. Our decisions doesn't just stop being influenced by our past experiences because the choice is unknown. In the best case it's so unknown that our inadequate ability to decide in such situations makes us choose the correct path out of pure luck.

But let's say there's three such path choices and at the third choice there's a trap under the left path. If the person have no information prior to this and chooses left the first time. His brain will start to form all kinds of biases with that choice. So when he comes to the second choice he might choose left "because it seems that left is the safe choice" or choose right "because it can't be left over and over, it could switch between them" only to end up choosing left at the third choice going into the trap. We see this behavior in "game theory" all the time.

And that leads to a simple question: if the other two choices are influenced by that first choice, by the biases it creates in our decision making, then why would the first choice not be influenced by other biases prior to that point? It is illogical to view that choice as existing in a vacuum.

The problem is that your argument attribute a cognitive ability to process the world around you to something that doesn't have support in psychology or neurology. You need to ask yourself, where do choices come from? How do we, humans, make choices? If you can't incorporate all the science that's been done so far on the human brain and consciousness when trying to answer that question, you're creating a large gap in your argument that relies on a bad or incomplete interpretation of how we humans function.

Our choices do not appear out of nowhere. If so, how do you scientifically or logically explain that? As well as hold that idea up to all the scientific research so far?