Doubt, free decision, and mind
By doubt I mean an experience of uncertainty in a situation. This uncertainty is due to the existence of options that their outcomes are unclear to us (for example, think of a situation where you are in a maze and reach a fork). We are however able to decide when we have doubt (we can choose one of the paths in the maze when we see the fork even though we don't know which path takes us to exist). We don't have any specific reason to choose one option over another one when we have doubts. Therefore, our decision is free* in this case. The brain is however a deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when there is doubt. Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide.
*A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision.
*A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision.
Comments (113)
I see room to disagree with this as an absolute in many if not most cases of general uncertainty. Should I pass the semi-truck in front of me? (the closest oncoming car appears to be miles away, though it would be safer not to) Should I really blow another $10 on another lotto ticket this week? (the odds of winning anything are astronomically low, though it's always possible) Etc. Though, your specific example of a (I would say generally uncommon) scenario where there is truly zero background information on the likelihood (or degree) of benefit or detriment of one option over the other, like a gamble, makes for an interesting thought experiment.
Quoting MoK
I'd agree with that. But what of the most simple organism capable of traversal, say, a snail crawling through a log (or something that presents an identical physicality to your maze scenario)? Assuming it just doesn't turn around (or crawl up the wall as snails so often do), it will likely either end up going left or right absent of any relatable "mind-thought" process, wouldn't it?
People however will just "wing it", per se, and pick one to avoid losing time and ensure the destination, whatever it may be, is reached. By which I mean, I'd assume there would be very little deep thought on the matter other than "keep going" and "just pick one" if there is truly no information available or apparent distinction between one choice and another.
I dabble in psychology but am certainly not a physiologist (how the body and "mind" work together and conversely affect one another). The brain allows "us" or "you" access to retrieve/recall our experiences and knowledge thus forming an identity or "consciousness" which can be referred to as a separate "entity" or a "mind". But is it really? Like, what if, somehow, a person was raised in a sealed, pitch black room with zero interaction with any living being from infancy to adulthood (naturally with food and water), would they have a "mind"? Would they be "conscious" in the way we consider human consciousness having no real sensory experiences or knowledge?
Quoting MoK
What was the second case? Or if the maze was the second, what was the first?
Would you say that having freedom is dependent on being ignorant about some things?
Quoting MoK
There are multiple senses of the word "indeterminism" and indeterminism in the sense discussed in the following article is relevant here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300312282_Indeterminism_in_System_Science
You will only be able to see a very brief abstract if you aren't signed into ResearchGate, but here is an excerpt from the introduction:
Quoting MoK
Brains are enormously complex entities that aren't deterministic in the sense that, given complete information about a brain and some rather enormous amount of the environment in which the brain exists, we could make perfect predictions about what will happen in that brain in that environment.
Furthermore, the things we do arise from a combination of conscious thought and subconscious thought (or subconscious information processing if you prefer).
So I disagree that we need to dualistically posit a mind as you suggest.
We are lost because we are free, so say the existentialists
So said Richard Feyman. :wink:
I use the example of the maze to ensure we can agree that the outcome of options is not determined in this case. Once this is established I can discuss the rest of my argument. There are other cases which we are uncertain about the outcomes of options (the two examples you provided and many others).
Quoting Outlander
Yes, that is correct. The point is however that we can choose one option over another when there is no information available on the outcomes of options.
Quoting Outlander
By mind, I don't mean the brain or anything like identity which is formed in the brain as a result of neurobiological processes.
Quoting Outlander
They certainly have a mind, by mind I mean an entity that can experience what is produced by the brain. His/her ability to experience however is very limited (please see the next comment).
Quoting Outlander
Our ability to experience reality well develops over time since the time of infancy. There is ongoing research on this topic. For example, this article discusses how our visual ability developes over time.
Quoting Outlander
The first case is when a decision is based on a reason. We say that the decision is unfree in this case. And the second case is when a decision is not based on a reason. We say that the decision is free in this case.
I don't think you can predicate freedom of choice to an entity whose inner workings you cannot describe by virtue of divorcing it from the only thing we do understand stuff about - the brain. In fact, what is to say there is an intentional choice at all being made by the mind? I could model the choice the mind makes in the "doubtful" maze situation on a random number generator, or a coin toss, and it could still have the kind of freedom you describe; there is not necessarily the kind of reasoned intention that is required for a mind to be making a meaningful choice. Thus, I don't think the OP, although interesting, necessitates the existence of a freely choosing mind.
After rereading my response to the OP, I hope I didn't come across smug. I do think my conclusion is right, but it is only because of a somewhat small loophole in your argument. I think that even if you don't come up with a good defense soon - and I hope you do - you could still modify your argument somehow.
No, I would say that our freedom allows us to decide when we are ignorant about the outcomes of the options.
Quoting wonderer1
It seems to me that the author of the manuscript is a computer scientist and not a particle physicist so I won't buy his words. I read the manuscript once and I could see the author's ignorance in the field of physics. The standard model is our best theory that describes reality well and it is experimentally tested. The particles, fermions, in this model, interact with each other through forces, bosons. The form of forces are well known and they are deterministic. By deterministic I mean that you can derive a set of equations of motion for the field operator of fermions and the field operator of bosons.
Quoting wonderer1
The brain is a complex entity but it is made of particles in which particles interact with the well-known forces. Therefore, I don't think that the brain is an indeterministic entity.
I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean.
If we fail to recognize that we are ignorant in some regard do we lack freedom to the degree that we fail to recognize our ignorance in that area?
To the best of my knowledge, there is no pure random generator but a pseudo-random generator. You can read more about pseudo-random generator here. Regardless, the brain cannot produce a random generator to decide about a situation when the outcomes of options are not known. How about a coin toss? You can use a coin to choose a path in the maze. You however don't need it since you have the ability to freely decide.
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.
That's my understanding at least. @MoK can correct me.
Exactly right. :100: :up: @wonderer1
You were the one who postulated a mind distinct from the brain, and that brains cannot produce random number generators is part of the point. The supposedly freely choosing mind only requires that the doubtful maze choice be made without reason; that is to say with doubt. Since the mind is distinct from the brain as per your definition, I'm saying that it is not necessary for this mind to make meaningful choices, as that would require reasoned intent. Thus, the mind could be choosing in the doubtful maze scenario according to things that have nothing to do with intentioned choices, but rather something like a coin flip or random number generator (even if those aren't totally random). When generalized, this conflicts with any sort of conception of free will there might be; that the mind must operate the way a brain does is not required to fit your definition of free choice.
And a question I should've asked earlier: are you saying that the freely choosing mind has freedom of choice in situations in which there is no doubt?
Correct. What the mind does in a doubtful situation is random and it is similar to tossing a coin.
Quoting ToothyMaw
That is a very good question! I believe so but I don't have a solid argument for it. Most of the time we make decisions even without being aware of them. For example, think of a situation that you are deriving on a familiar road, and your conscious attention is on the music playing in your car. You make tons of decisions while you are deriving, like turning left or right at a junction without being aware of them. But suppose that a cat jumps into the road that you are deriving. Suddenly, your mind is alerted and takes control of the situation. You press the brake and stop the car to avoid hitting the cat and probably killing it. So I think that the mind plays a role in such a situation.
Most of our decisions are not based on reason, for example when I decide to order a cheeseburger rather than pate de foie gras or when I turn left on Washington Street without thinking about it. Preferences and values are not generally rational.
Are you talking about unconscious decisions?
Quoting T Clark
Correct. By reason, I generally mean a cause for an action, whether it is feeling, preference, value, rationality, etc.
Perhaps "a reason" would be clearer than "reason." Even then I'd be tempted to argue your point, but then we'd just get sucked into another of those unresolvable arguments that results whenever we dive into the bottomless pit of free will.
Thanks for the correction.
Quoting T Clark
It is alright if you don't want to engage in the discussion of free will. I don't think it is bottomless considering the argument provided in OP.
You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. You take out a coin and toss it, heads to the right and tails to the left. The coin toss makes the decision. This is hardly an instance of free will, other than deciding to leave the decision to the coin.
You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. Now you ponder and then make a decision. Is this free will? Or does some internal neural mechanism in your subconscious "toss a coin"?
This is what I was getting at, but you presented it much more clearly. :up:
I look forward to MoK's response.
Good job, both of you, of articulating what I was trying to point towards.
I used the maze example to ensure we can agree that the options are real. That is a huge step in the discussion of free will since many people simply argue that one of the options is an illusion and you cannot choose it. Why do people argue such a thing? Because they believe in determinism and within determinism options are not allowed. I also used the maze example to ensure that we have no reason to choose one path over another yet we can decide and choose one of the paths. That is to me the very definition of free will: "A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision". By this definition, I simply set up a dichotomy so given that one of the definitions is related to the unfree decision we are left with another definition for free decision.
Quoting jgill
If we accept that neural mechanisms are deterministic then subconsciousness cannot toss a coin. That is true since the outcome of tossing a coin is not known whereas the outcome neural mechanisms are well defined and known.
Can coins be tossed in a deterministic world?
If so, then why can't a neural mechanism do something analogous to tossing a coin?
Yes, we can toss a coin. I however have to add that the outcome of tossing a coin is not known to us due to our ignorance about the initial condition of the coin and the situation of the environment. If one knows the exact initial condition of the coin when it is tossed and the situation of the environment, such as wind, then one can know the outcome of tossing the coin.
Quoting wonderer1
The neural mechanisms are well-defined and deterministic. The is no agent in each neural point with a coin available to it.
Which brings us back to the role of ignorance in attributing things to free will.
We don't know anything remotely approaching the exact initial conditions of our brains and all the environmental factors which play a determing role in what happens in our brains. Furthermore, there is lots of good evidence for the powerful role of subconscious processes emerging in our conscious thought.
How is a "mind" a better explanation than subconscious processes?
Correct. We don't know about the exact condition of neural activity of our brain but we know that it is deterministic. There is however a problem in the deterministic worldview so-called doubt. Options are real in the case we have doubts and a deterministic entity cannot deal with a situation when there are doubts.
Quoting wonderer1
The subconscious process cannot resolve the conflict when we have doubt in a situation. That is true since the options are real when we have doubts and we don't have any reason to choose one option over another option.
Even if we ignore quantum indeterminacy... As you say, we don't know what is going on in our own brains in any detailed way, so how can you rule out subconscious bias as being what amounts to a coin flip in your head?
Also, I don't recall you acknowledging the the sort of indeterminacy that can result from system complexity. IIRC you have a physics background, so perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to consider the relevance of the three body problem to the complex molecular environment of a brain.
I don't believe we are aware of all the information that enters our mind. If that is the case what the subconscious processes may indeed inform us - in what seems to be an act of free will.
Very good point.
We might say that we go with our intuitions in such cases.
Do you mind explaining what you mean by the subconsciousness? Does it have a mind or is it a deterministic entity?
Quoting wonderer1
I know problems related to a system with three or more particles. There is no analytical solution for such a system and the system could be chaotic depending on the initial condition.
We, our conscious minds to be more precise, are not aware of all the information that we perceive through our sensory systems.
Quoting jgill
Isn't the subconscious process deterministic? 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 there is only one state available for a deterministic system at any given time. There are two states available to choose from when we have doubts though.
For me, the word "doubt" applies to a conscious state, not a subconscious state.
Then why bring subconsciousness into the discussion? Ok. Is the conscious state the result of the brain process?
Can't doubt be a mechanism developed into, and operating within, a deterministic system; the "sense" that there is an agent doubting being, not a challenge posed by doubt so much as by the illusion of the agent "choosing" to doubt (the so called self/subject/ego)? Further, isn't it bad enough we superimpose a false duality by speaking of mind as a separate being from matter? Do we really need to make mind itself consist of dualities--conscious/unconscious? Isn't the entire process we conventionally think of as mind, deterministic: choice, belief, and doubt? If the chain of signifiers constructed by mind align one way, functionally, belief is triggered and the body responds accordingly; if another way, from dysfunctionally to just not functionally enough, doubt is triggered and the body responds accordingly.
We don't choose to doubt. We face doubt.
Quoting ENOAH
Matter including the brain as I discussed is deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when we have doubt.
Quoting ENOAH
The mind is conscious. It is not unconscious.
Quoting ENOAH
The mind is not a process to me but an entity with ability to freely decide. We would have problem to decide when we have doubt if mind is deterministic.
Agreed. We don't choose doubt, nor do we choose belief. We are cornered by the factors at play into settlement with respect to each. Deterministic, in both instances.
Quoting MoK
Agreed again.
Quoting MoK
Right again.
Quoting MoK
And, by that do you mean, the so called self? Or is Mind a [deterministic] entity which decides autonomously, without input from a central authority or agent?
What do you mean by self? Soul?
Quoting ENOAH
Mind is an indeterministic entity. It receives input from the brain.
Quoting MoK
I'm not convinced there is a real self nor soul, if by those, we mean a separate entity with a will.
So...:
Quoting MoK
If the brain is deterministic (I believe you are suggesting so) and it feeds the indeterministic mind, where, if anywhere, does will fit in? Which one of these is confronted with the duality of belief v doubt? And how does that entity settle upon either? If the mind is indeterministic, and, accordingly, the entity of "choice" (presumably willful choice), there are still presumably a series of causes (including the so called input from the brain) prior to that final "moment" where, what? suddenly there is a gap in causes, and mind leaps, on its own, independently of any last cause, thus choosing willfully (even, perhaps, freely) to either believe or doubt? What mechanism does/causes that (free) choice?
I personally have difficulty jumping into this idea of a self soul will to explain that gap. It makes more sense for me to believe (I recognize the seeming internal challenge of "I believe") that the final step too, belief/doubt is also "deterministic." Not pre-determined; not inevitable, but still, the final "choice," believe/doubt was triggered by that immediately preceding it; not by an agent willing it.
Another way to express what I'm angling toward, is that "reason" is defined to restrictively above (or, I assume). A decision is always based on a preceding trigger, whether such a trigger can be defined as a "reason" or not. Nothing happens absolutely independently. Even the most randomly seeming "choice" can be traced back to its triggers, right up to the immediately pre ending domino that pushed the domino with choice printed on it.
Well, that is the logical consequence of my argument. A deterministic entity such as the brain cannot decide when there is doubt.
Quoting ENOAH
Will is the faculty of the mind.
Quoting ENOAH
I am not talking about belief.
Quoting ENOAH
What do you mean?
Quoting ENOAH
Yes, there is a series of causes that lead to the experience of doubt.
Quoting ENOAH
The mind does not choose to believe or doubt. The mind chooses between options.
Quoting ENOAH
There is no mechanism. The free choice is an indeterministic phenomenon.
Quoting ENOAH
The final step namely free decision cannot be deterministic.
Quoting ENOAH
We cannot avoid the mind once we accept that doubt is real.
I am talking about different types of decisions here. The decision is called free when you don't have a reason to choose one option over another. Therefore, there cannot be any preceding cause for a free decision.
Apologies, I may be looking at a different page altogether. My final input. But if there is no reason, free decision, ok, lets say I agree on the face of it. But where there is reason, you agree we are compelled by reason? But what if you "choose" to go against reason, why is it we accept reason triggered your choice, but going against reason was free? Something triggered that foolish choice. And if there is uncertainty, no reason, then though the triggers are less patent, there are triggers there too. You go through a balancing, and choose, having been triggered by something already input into your history, and used to trigger a choice. It's not PRE-determined; but the choice was the temporary settlement in an incessantly moving deterministic system where history reconstructs itself in the most functional way to meet new "circumstances". Should I stay or should I go? The choice is determined by history. There is no self soul or will in the process.
How could your decision be based on history when you have doubt?
How then does doubt emerge, if not by the push of history? Is doubt arising, out of the blue?
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.
Maybe because of our approach.
All of these items you listed are mechanisms in an autonomously moving deterministic process which is transmitted by socialization generationally.
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.
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.
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.
In none of those cases is an agent 'choosing.' Its just stimulus and conditioned response. But built into the deterministic movements, is, because of the attachment of the image(s) to the pronoun, the Subject, giving the illusion of an agent/choice in what's really a deterministic process. So that in neither prehistory nor history is it valid for an animal to congratulate themselves for a choice or to curse bad choices or indecisions. It is all stimulus and (conditioned) response. It's just for human animals there is an illusion of a chooser and choice.
I think even a mouse can freely decide when it is in a maze.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Fair enough. Will re-think. I appreciated your thoughts.
No problem. Feel free to ask if you have another question.
Just to point out, I am not evangelizing anything. I simply trust introspection more than logic reasoning, and I will explain why. What I know from this introspection is that there can be two modes to walk around in this world, thinking and non-thinking. The perspective of these two modes is totally different. In the thinking mode it feels like you are in control. But when you take a deep breath and look around in nature (by which I mean: stop thinking), you are in harmony with your environment. Often then a decision about what you need to do comes naturally, you simply know what you'll have to do. Who made this decision? Is it free will? These terms have no meaning in this mode.
My experience is that these decisions almost always work out in a positive way. Whereas decisions based on thinking can have all kinds of logical errors, prejudice that you don't see yourself etcetera. Look at any discussion here on the forum and you'll see that it is very hard to reach a final conclusion on topics that are not formally defined (like Math is).
I am not saying, never think. What I am saying is: we can use a better understanding of these two modes, because without it, this discussion becomes a little singe-sided.
Did you read the OP? If yes, what is your opinion about it? I defined all the necessary terms.
Therefore I don't think your conclusion is a required one.
Have you ever had a doubt?
I do not have all answers, and I accept the fact that I don't. If I need to make a decision, I do some thinking, but generally I do not make decisions based on thinking alone, I also follow my intuition, so to speak. And at some point often an insight comes.
So either I don't know, or I know. I don't have the experience of "making a choice". Eckhart Tolle (Power of Now) calls the free will an illusion of the mind, that is another way to look at it. But you can only see it that way if your mind is a bit relaxed ;) .
My question was simple. Have you ever had a doubt? Yes or no?
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.
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.
What I do next is become still, stopping my thoughts. (Since you're interested in free will, my choice to become still is a learned behaviorIve learned that thinking doesnt resolve these questions.) In this case, an answer comes to me quickly and clearly: yes, I should post this response. Only after that does the reasoning behind it come to me. It works like a logical process, but in reverse.
Then, of course, your question is: where does that first 'yes' come from? Is there such a thing as a free mind?
I believe even a deterministic system can have 'free will', at least in some sense. This is because our conceptual understanding of deterministic systems is limited. A deterministic system as complex as the brain can be understood at the component level (neurons in this case), but the emergent behavior that arises operates on a different level of understanding, with no direct logical connection between the two. Yes, the connection exists, but conceptually, we cant fully grasp it. Its where we have to say 'stop' to conceptual thinking, much like division by zero is not allowed in math.
So, an answer comes, and I dont know from where. Is it a free mind? Concepts play tricks on us here. For instance, is it possible to choose the opposite of what you actually chose? If not, how can it be free will? I dont let those concepts fool methats how I deal with it.
Finally, to clarify why I said I dont have doubts: for me, doubt comes with a feeling of unease. In what I just described, I didnt feel uneasy, so personally, I wouldnt call it doubt
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.
define x
for a = 1 to 1000000000
y = y + 1 / a
next a
x = 2 + y
x is "in doubt" while calculating y
Doubt is a mental state.
No, x is not determined while the program is calculating y.
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.
Look, it is not too difficult to write a computer program that implements doubt.
00 = false
11 = true
01 = doubt
No, undefined does not mean doubt.
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.
"01" does not represent a doubtful situation as I defined it in OP and gave an example of it.
Discussion ends here until you provide a few logical steps that explain your point.
"01" is just a number. Isn't it? Are you saying that when a variable is "01" then the computer has doubt?
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. You end up with the conclusion that, based on this definition, there must be a mind. If by "mind" you also understand consciousness, then the whole argument collapses.
Yes.
Quoting 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.
That opens a can of worms. Okay, let others continue this. I've done what I can.
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.
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.
That is what I call a can of worms. Don't feel offended, it is just that there is no end to the things you can discuss from here.
No, my argument does not work like that, there is experience therefore there is a mind.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
So according to you assigning a variable to be X which is arbitrary means that the computer has doubt.
Quoting MoK I am saying that without the need for "experience" your logic fails.
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.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
But you were not able to define a doubtful situation in which experience is not needed.
This medium is more difficult than talking face to face. I don't know you personally, I don't see your face how you read this. What I do see is a repetition of arguments that make no sense to me. If I say "A" and you say "not A", that doesn't help. I see it in the other post too, where you comment noAxioms, you do not really seem to understand what he is saying, while for me it makes perfect sense. Instead of asking clarification, you start opposing him. At some point I can no longer contribute.
I did not try to repeat your argument, I said on one end you shove "experience" in and at the other end "mind" comes out. You cannot deny that. It is just not the full argument.
That is what I mean by : try to read the others arguments
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?
Put "experience" back in the definition and yes, my program fails. And then you get a "mind" as a requirement. Since there are many opinions on mind and experience, you must make explicit what you mean by those terms in your case. And then you have to prove that the "mind" in the output is not simply caused by the "experience" you put in. I said, this is a can of worms.
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.
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?
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.
So your algorithm is biased and not free. What does this have to do with OP which discusses that humans have minds?
I am open to discussing OP further if you wish.
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.
Quoting flannel jesus
What are LLMs? Large language models?
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.
So you agree that the conclusion follows from OP?
Quoting Carlo Roosen
I am familiar with the hard problem of consciousness. What is consciousness to you?
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Probably I wrote around a thousand codes during my career. Don't take me wrong I know what you are talking about.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Sure. I am talking about a conscious agent who has a doubt in a situation.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
If you have no interest in discussing OP which crucially depends on consciousness then that is the end of discussion.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Yes
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 am sorry but there is nothing left to discuss.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Quoting 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.
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?
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?