QUESTION: When does Consciousness begin?

[Brown]

Consciousness to me is defined by sentience, personal experience. A computer is not considered conscious even though it reacts to stimuli. It has no experience of the interaction. I think at a more general level we begin with subconscious. A state where we react, feel, but have a limited level if any of self observation. Many animals must fall into this category, but not all. Does a lizard do more than react and sense it's own reactions as a cat would?Consciousness seems to be a level of focus of the barely perceived subconscious awareness. The big problem I feel is that the terms we have are too crude and non-specific for the discussion.

The crossover from subconsciousness to consciousness seems by experience to be gradual. This begs the question, is the first step into a subconscious state the same, or a matter of a critical mass being reached?

Answering whether a plant is conscious or from my stance subconscious is another interesting issue. It will react to stimuli, but so will a simple chemical process. What matters is perhaps whether something within or around the plant feels the compulsion to react.

[A Dark Philosopher]

Johar: Thanks for putting some of the thoughts you have shared privately with me here on FORUM JoJo.

I suppose if I were to take the reductionist view and define sentience in its most fundamental form I would say it is the sending and receiving of stimulus.
This includes the ‘knowing’ that the sentient ‘thing’ has to send and receive this stimulus.

In my reply to Woodsprite (Di), I said "what do I mean by sentience? Well, I mean having a sensory input; the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary, undifferentiated consciousness.", so I’d agree with your reductionist viewpoint.

So, once the sperm fertilizes the egg, it ‘knows’ to replicate and receives stimulation in the form of hormones from the mother. It also knows to send out its own hormonal messages and it is this constant exchange that creates the foetus. Therefore, following this logic, sentience begins at the point of conception.

I tend to agree. Fundamentally, at the point of conception, ALL data for the growth of the new life-form is present. Nothing is added to the fertilised egg externally, it just begins to grow, feeding from its environment. Essentially this means that at the moment of conception, a whole new universe is born, in the new life-form. Quite literally, every moment of conception is therefore a BIG BANG!
*oh how we all laughed*

From there I would incorporate CtCw into my thinking and conclude that once sentience is established there is a build up of energy, a quickening if you will, which collapses the consciousness wave. Consciousness, in my opinion, begins instantaneously after sentience, which is established at the point of fertilization.

The extent of how Consciousness begins is largely dependant on how developed the brain is, in the being itself. For example, the human brain is far more evolved in size and neural functioning than a mouse, so upon attaining sentience I would expect the progression to Consciousness to be quicker in those beings with a more evolved brain structure. This continues into reflexive-self-consciousness; the more evolved the brain, the quicker the transition to self-awareness. This helps explain why the brain evolves in all life-forms, for with each life the brain is developing and this, along with all other physiological/psychological advancements is encoded into the genes and memes within the DNA and passed on to the next generation.

I feel that consciousness exists on many, many levels, so although a human being has been created at this point, it is still possible to have a fundamental consciousness within the womb, just as many living things have a form of proto consciousness. If one thinks about evolution over millions of years and reduces it down to 40 weeks or there abouts, one can see the single celled organism evolving rapidly and elegantly to become the human baby.

Yes, I totally agree and, on a personal level, thank you for listening to me ramble on about these subjects. Your help and input has been invaluable and your comments here very much appreciated.

[A Dark Philosopher]

Nefertiti: Hi Kathy, thanks for taking the time to consider my question.

Although both sets of the parents DNA is passed through the umbilical cord as well as the essential proteins, I think that as the baby emerges it is exposed to light which may cause a reaction to start the whole conscious awareness process off. The baby cannot open its eyes for a short time but then usually a small part of the umbilical cord is still attached. Maybe after this small piece has dropped off the baby's begins to see a bit more clearer and maybe that's when consciousness takes affect? until then it just possesses instinct? as when born the baby will automatically search for food and cry at it's own discomfort.

When does a baby open its eyes? From my understanding it is not unusual for a baby to be born with its eyes open and some reports even suggest a baby can open its eyes in utero. Your suggestion regarding light is interesting and your thought around the umbilical cord are ones that reflect mine over the couple of years I’ve been researching this whole area.

I have previously wandered about this and remember discussing it the last time we caught up with a few of you guys, it is a great topic to discuss as I feel a lot more study of the umbilical may in time come up with more enlightening facts and maybe more answers to the questions we don't as yet know! I have always wandered why when we get the gut feeling it is felt in the area of the navel? as this is where we invariably place our hand! there must be more to the umbilical cord than we know!

*chuckle* Yes, we have rather a wide range of topics we discuss in the pubs of Liverpool when we meet up don’t we! I sometimes notice the looks on the faces of people trying to overhear our chats! Probably not what one expects! I look forward to seeing you again on the 17th to do it all again!
I’ve asked the question to Obstetricians and further professionals who work with unborn babies and pregnant mothers about the umbilical cord. I’ve also discussed the implications with my Philosophy Professor chums. My question again initially looked a small one but it expands to become rather huge.
*stop giggling Kathy*:
At what point is the child independent of the Mother?
Now this has sociological, psychological, physiological, philosophical and more implications, but surely, on a fundamental level, until the severance of the umbilical cord, the infant is largely an ‘annex’ to the functionality of the host. This sharing of locality provides the basis for the quantum entanglement of parent and child in my CtCw theory but I do want to ask more questions regarding the umbilical so thank you for this important contribution.

Back to the light though, It is the first thing we encounter when we are born and yet some will say it is the last thing we notice when we die! which makes me think that maybe it triggers what we know as consciousness and also ends it?
I have not read all the posts on this site and as you may be aware I don't have any scientific jargon or terminology but as some of you who have previously met me you will know that I explain my thoughts in my own simple way!

And we wouldn’t have it any other way, Kathy. I’m very interested in your light suggestion. This has certainly got me thinking about an angle that I’ve not fully explored yet, which is precisely why I started this thread, so thank you enormously for making me think. I like that! *smile*

[A Dark Philosopher]

Anubis65: Hi, Dave. Thanks for your input, as always.

I like to think consciousness as a kind of giant sphere that fragments and we are all parts of the fragments. We are all part of the same thing and all return to it at the end of our lives, a little like Karls theory of the bucket and the sea.

Yes, very much in line with David Bohm’s Implicate Order and the Holographic Theories of several others. Indeed if you take the work of someone like Karl Pribram, Michael Talbot, David Bohm et al and add Tony’s ITLAD and my CtCw then it becomes feasible that Consciousness itself operates as a hologram within a holographic reality. So a hologram within a hologram……how Marvellous!
*smile*
For those who don’t know……here is a link to my Bucket and Sea analogy of Consciousness.

As to when it begins i think it has always been and always will be, no begining and no end.

Similar thinking to that expressed earlier by Aloha Gary, to which my reply would be the same: At what point does the Subjective Consciousness that is "us", separate from the One-Consciousness that always "IS"? This question can also be considered towards Kathy’s discussion around the umbilical cord!

Here is an interesting piece i found,

Awareness essentially must be awareness of itself, because that which is aware, is aware, and so therefore aware of itself, and therefore aware of itself..... continuously.... there is no ‘begin’ or ‘end’ to this process, otherwise there would be an awareness of NOT being, which is impossible, since awareness itself means awareness of itself. There can be no NOT awareness, for one must be aware in order to consider the idea of NOT awareness!

This is Kenneth MacLean isn’t it? His "Dialogues – Conversations with my Higher Self" is a very interesting read if interested in the more personal approach rather than a scientific one. In my opinion this awareness develops AFTER consciousness is attained. Something can be conscious and not self-aware ([i]a mouse or a new-born baby perhaps), one cannot be aware of NOT ‘being’ for to do so implies awareness itself! I think therefore I am not! *nerdish giggles*

So before i explode my brain with all this info does the unlimited world of potential create both the illusion of matter and the delusion we call consciousness.

Ha! You know what I’m going to say! IS the world of potential "unlimited"? IS Consciousness a delusion or is the subjectivity of consciousness a delusion and we are all connected as one consciousness at a higher level?

Hope your brain is ok, mate!

[A Dark Philosopher]

Brown: Many thanks for your input, it is much appreciated and valued although you’ve not particularly addressed the fundamental question of When does Consciousness begin? However, I do understand that in order to properly address the question it is, on occasion, necessary to define what exactly the question is asking!
*smile*

Consciousness to me is defined by sentience, personal experience. A computer is not considered conscious even though it reacts to stimuli. It has no experience of the interaction.

Now, philosophical question here: Does a computer react to stimuli or is the stimulation required to the very being of the computer? I’ll clarify! If you simply place an upgrade onto your computer, by which I mean just sit the box on the unit it will not react. However, if you install it then it most certainly will. This, in effect, is similar to altering the genetic make-up of a living being. This doesn’t imply that a computer is conscious, nor sentient specifically but it is certainly a processor. One that requires external operation certainly!

I think at a more general level we begin with subconscious. A state where we react, feel, but have a limited level if any of self observation. Many animals must fall into this category, but not all. Does a lizard do more than react and sense it's own reactions as a cat would?Consciousness seems to be a level of focus of the barely perceived subconscious awareness. The big problem I feel is that the terms we have are too crude and non-specific for the discussion.

The problem with suggesting an initial ‘subconscious’ is that by very definition it implies a non-sub conscious, (‘sub’ to what?), therefore an a priori Consciousness. Personally, as I’ve stated already in previous replies, I think it’s entirely plausible that consciousness can exist subjectively without self-awareness: that element develops over time. This state would be akin to what you describe here, a functionality below conscious direction, one almost on auto-pilot. I understand your concern regarding the terminology and I am very happy to discuss Consciousness with you using the very deepest of terms and latest academic findings of Neurology, Quantum Mechanics and Psychology but I deliberately made this thread as open as possible in order to gain input from a wide range of people.

The crossover from subconsciousness to consciousness seems by experience to be gradual. This begs the question, is the first step into a subconscious state the same, or a matter of a critical mass being reached?

Again, I have to say I can’t accept an initial ‘subconscious’ state of functionality simply because of its logical implications. If considered as a subjectively non-reflexive-consciousness, in a sense a purely reactive sentience then I fully agree. Also, as we are dealing with the collapse of the consciousness wave, in my terminology, a critical mass is certainly not reached. How would you consider one may be?

Answering whether a plant is conscious or from my stance subconscious is another interesting issue. It will react to stimuli, but so will a simple chemical process. What matters is perhaps whether something within or around the plant feels the compulsion to react.

Yes, this again plays into my consciousness without self-awareness suggestion. The sentience of such will be entirely reactive, by which I mean non-pro-active: No subjective causality. A plant with sentience or even a proto-consciousness would react to external stimuli but have no sense of self to alternately create its own internal stimulus. In creatures with evolved nervous systems and brains like humans this does manifest as self-awareness via reflexive-self-consciousness.

Thanks again for your input, it’s all tremendously interesting and collectively everyone is showing just how good FORUM can be. I’d be very interested to read your further thoughts to my answers and any additional input you, or anyone else who wishes to assist Tony and I may have.

[aloha_gary]

Aloha to you all...
From the Karlmeister...

At what point does the Subjective Consciousness that is "us", separate from the One-Consciousness that always "IS"? This question can also be considered towards Kathy’s discussion around the umbilical cord!

The answer is that the subjective conscious NEVER separates from the one-consciousness, that's why it's called the one-consciousness

So this is the wrong question. I think maybe what you meant to ask is at what point does the newly created consciousness begin to create/collapse? then that would be immediately, at the point of conception.

So remember that everything is itself, AND also part of everything, the greater whole. So the atom is in the molecule, in the cell, in the organ, in the body, in humanity, on the planet, in the galaxy, in the universe, in the cosmos, in the oneness of everything. Only human mind separates.

So the wave function is collapsed as soon as the being becomes itself and starts to multiply, which is at conception, however briefly, even if it miscarries in early term, it has existed as itself, and to include what might normally feature in the Esoteric section, the soul connects at the point of conception and leaves at the point of physical exit/death, or as the Hawaiians commonly say, at the point of "change of address".

hope this clarifies
aloha
Gary

[A Dark Philosopher]

Aloha to you all...
From the Karlmeister...

At what point does the Subjective Consciousness that is "us", separate from the One-Consciousness that always "IS"? This question can also be considered towards Kathy’s discussion around the umbilical cord!

The answer is that the subjective conscious NEVER separates from the one-consciousness, that's why it's called the one-consciousness

But our subjective consciousness appears to us to be separate in our empirical experiences: recall "we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively as collapsed particles of consciousness from the objective consciousness wave", which suggests a perceived localisation from the waveform. A particle observed under the Copenhagen Interpretation takes on the appearance of a material substance in a localised point, when un-observed it is merely potential on the waveform. So even if the subjectivity of consciousness is just an illusion [comedy cue], at what point does this subjectivity begin and collapse? In my opinion, it occurs on subjective observation; upon sentience.

So this is the wrong question. I think maybe what you meant to ask is at what point does the newly created consciousness begin to create/collapse? then that would be immediately, at the point of conception.

Yes, as I suggested in my reply to JoJo, "Fundamentally, at the point of conception, ALL data for the growth of the new life-form is present. Nothing is added to the fertilised egg externally, it just begins to grow, feeding from its environment. Essentially this means that at the moment of conception, a whole new universe is born, in the new life-form. Quite literally, every moment of conception is therefore a BIG BANG!
*oh how we all laughed*"

So remember that everything is itself, AND also part of everything, the greater whole. So the atom is in the molecule, in the cell, in the organ, in the body, in humanity, on the planet, in the galaxy, in the universe, in the cosmos, in the oneness of everything. Only human mind separates.

And of course, the 'atom' itself is somewhat misleading, being that it translates to mean 'un-cuttable' and we now know that the atom is far from such, containing as it does, the myriad of sub-atomic particles. As the only thing that separates us is indeed the human mind, my question remains: At what point does the subjective human mind seem to separate from the one-ness, whether illusional or not. When does Consciousness (subjectively) begin?

So the wave function is collapsed as soon as the being becomes itself and starts to multiply, which is at conception, however briefly, even if it miscarries in early term, it has existed as itself, and to include what might normally feature in the Esoteric section, the soul connects at the point of conception and leaves at the point of physical exit/death, or as the Hawaiians commonly say, at the point of "change of address"

Yes, I very much agree. ALL the data for the growth of the being is present at conception. In my own opinion I think this fusion of data from the sperm with the data from the egg effectively provides all the ingredients to make the multitude of lives one may live in an ITLADic Bohmian IMAX sequence. This therefore can be viewed as a quantum event, from which the infinite/finite (*delete depending on your belief) potentiality is created. Quite literally a BIG BANG from which every outcome is expanded. My Kernel of Consciousness concept can then be applied and the Bucket and Sea analogy works perfectly well, I think. This can therefore also be applied at the point of death (at the end of what I term the Ultimate Life), when there remains no space-time in which to subjectively replay the last past life memory, sentience effectively ends, we cease to be the primary observer in our own universe and our Bucket is tipped back in the Sea to begin the cycle again as a fresh collapse in a new 'Bucket' of potential.

It is all rather beautiful.

[Nebankh]

Karl asked:
"At what point does the subjective human mind seem to separate from the one-ness, whether illusional or not. When does Consciousness (subjectively) begin?"

That's what "The Fall" is attempting to describe, in my not-so-humble opinion Nowt to do with angels and all the other stories different cultures have developed.


Looking at your question as 'when does our subjective Consciousness begin', rather than just as when does consciousness begin, I'd say it develops along with our Will. When we realise we actually have a Will, we become conscious of the subjective. An infant has a Will but doesn't recognise it as its own (ie it's still a part of the one-ness at this point). An infant will learn to say 'no', to refuse things, and might still not realise that this is its own Will.
Perhaps the defining moment is when our mind develops to the point when we realise our Will is not the same as others, and thereby become aware of Self. I know that's probably stating the obvious, but I'm just trying to introduce the concept of Will

[A Dark Philosopher]

Karl asked:
"At what point does the subjective human mind seem to separate from the one-ness, whether illusional or not. When does Consciousness (subjectively) begin?"
That's what "The Fall" is attempting to describe, in my not-so-humble opinion Nowt to do with angels and all the other stories different cultures have developed.

Hmmm, yes, I would tend to agree. There was a part of the TV Interview that Tony and I did recently where I was asked about the whole area of Religion and Belief within my CtCw. I basically said that much of Theology, if looked at with my One-Consciousness concept, makes a lot of sense, including "The Fall". When it is aired it will be interesting to see what you make of what I say.

Looking at your question as 'when does our subjective Consciousness begin', rather than just as when does consciousness begin, I'd say it develops along with our Will.

Now, we have a problem here: WILL has been discussed at some considerable length on this FORUM, mostly between Susan Marie and myself towards the Philosophical implications. My question regarding WILL always remains the same because no-one, Philosopher or otherwise, has been able to answer it effectively: From whence does WILL originate if not from Consciousness?

When we realise we actually have a Will, we become conscious of the subjective. An infant has a Will but doesn't recognise it as its own (ie it's still a part of the one-ness at this point). An infant will learn to say 'no', to refuse things, and might still not realise that this is its own Will.

No, I do agree but to my mind WILL originates from within Consciousness itself, upon attaining a self-reflexive nature to that subjective consciousness. Will is inwardly causal, not externally imbued. This requires the self-reflexive element and a basic self-awareness, as you rightly suggest, to separate the "self". This illusion is then affirmed by society and cultural influences. But as a prime mover one requires a subjectivity of Consciousness before Will.

Perhaps the defining moment is when our mind develops to the point when we realise our Will is not the same as others, and thereby become aware of Self. I know that's probably stating the obvious, but I'm just trying to introduce the concept of Will

Sometimes stating the obvious is what’s needed for the majority to see the point! I totally agree that this development is the defining moment to the illusion of self as separate from the oneness of consciousness. Will is a by-product of the self-reflexive nature of a developed subjective consciousness. But I still assert that in order to have a Will, one initially requires the subjectivity of consciousness to be in place. Otherwise the Will is a collective one.

[A Dark Philosopher]

There is a really interesting article in this month's Scientific American MIND magazine written by Christof Koch, Professor of Biology and Engineering at California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Southern California.

When Does Consciousness Arise In Human Babies?

In the article, Koch asks a fabulous question, which if looked at through our ITLAD/CtCw spectacles, can provide a stunning answer.....

"Although consciousness during dreams is not the same as during wakefulness—most noticeably insight and self-reflection are absent—dreams are consciously experienced and felt. So does the fetus dream when in REM sleep? This is not known. But what would it dream of?"

Koch also wrote "The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological approach" based on his collaboration with Francis Crick.