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.

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.