QUESTION: When does Consciousness begin?

[Brown]

I feel we have been debating at crossed purposes on some points. I used the term algebra to mean discerning the nature of what was not known by what was known. Not in a literal calculation.

On the point of self-awareness, I agree that it is in place by 3, if not before. But my argument is that the child knows only one perspective and is aware of only one. It still knows of it's own perspective though, and does not suspect any others are out there as well. The change comes when the realization of other perspectives and therefore the limitations of self are apparent. Tests to suggest a child assumes anything removed no longer exists would still fit this concept, as would those which emphasise that they expect something they have seen to be known by all.

From the article;The data available
thus far highlight three memory-related achievements that may help children scramble
over the childhood amnesia barrier during their second or third year of life. First,
the speed with which infants encode information increases as a function of age. Thus,
under the same encoding conditions, older infants undoubtedly establish richer
memory representations than those of their younger counterparts (Rovee-Collier,
Earley, & Stafford, 1989). Age-related differences in the speed of encoding may also
influence memory retrieval. That is, infants
ability to detect adequate retrieval cues
clearly increases as a function of age as does their ability to strike a match between a
retrieval cue and a target memory attribute. One or both of these factors would increase
the efficiency of memory retrieval and enhance the probability that it would
occur in the first place (Hayne et al., 2000b).
Second, the retention interval over which infants
memories remain accessible to
retrieval increases dramatically as a function of age. Although the absolute duration
of retention in simple forgetting procedures varies across memory tasks, within the
same task, infant retention has been shown to improve by a factor of 6 (Herbert
& Hayne, 2000a) to 91 (Hartshorn et al., 1998a) over the first two years of life. This
development alone could potentially account for childhood amnesia. If forgetting
occurs within days or weeks during early infancy, it is hardly surprising that those
memories are unavailable when we try to access them after retention intervals of
62 H. Hayne / Developmental Review 24 (2004) 33–73
years (or decades)! Over the course of development, however, the forgetting function
gradually flattens, increasing the accessibility of a given memory even after very long
delays. Furthermore, even after forgetting has occurred, data collected using reminder
procedures has shown that the accessibility of the representation varies dramatically
as a function of age. Older infants retrieve their memories more quickly,
over longer delays, and once retrieved, maintain them for longer periods of time.
Any or all of these changes could have dramatic effects on the long-term retention
of any given memory representation.
Third, the flexibility of memory retrieval also increases as a function of age during
the infancy period. That is, memory retrieval by young infants is highly specific to
the conditions of original encoding. Changes in either the proximal or contextual
cues disrupt or preclude retrieval of the target memory. The high degree of specificity
of the cues required to initiate memory retrieval by these young infants suggests that
it may be difficult, if not impossible, for early memories to be retrieved by cues (or in
contexts) that were not a part of the original experience. As such, our early memories
probably go unretrieved and unexpressed even during infancy, and are eventually
lost through disuse.
As a function of both maturation and experience, older infants gradually exploit
more or different retrieval cues allowing them to access their memories in a wider
range of situations. As memory retrieval becomes increasingly more flexible during
late infancy and early childhood, individual memories are more likely to be retrieved, end quote

From this it seems likely that the same systems for memory are in action, although at a less developed state. Hence my point that the types of memory in infants seem much as older children and adults.

Back to my earlier point that the first stage of consciousness experienced could be a peripheral, basic type. One reason for thinking this was the analogy to vision, with there always being a larger area intoto seen, and a smaller one in focus. There is another point that I should have brought up sooner, namely how do we even know which part of our lives is viewed first by consciousness? Before I had encountered Anthony's ideas I had considered that some part of the subconscious might experience time in a whole perspective. Not simply have done the life run before but be seeing everything always.

[A Dark Philosopher]

I feel we have been debating at crossed purposes on some points.

Precisely why I suggested in my last comment that: "I feel the discussion would now benefit if you reviewed the whole of the exchange from the beginning and especially my comments in reply to the other wonderful input from all who have contributed as your latest comments suggest to me you’ve not fully read or understood them."

I used the term algebra to mean discerning the nature of what was not known by what was known. Not in a literal calculation.

How else is that which is not known discerned, other than by what is already known?

On the point of self-awareness, I agree that it is in place by 3, if not before. But my argument is that the child knows only one perspective and is aware of only one. It still knows of it's own perspective though, and does not suspect any others are out there as well.

How can a functioning consciousness ‘know’ of its (not it’s) perspective whilst not being self-aware? That’s a huge contradiction.

The change comes when the realization of other perspectives and therefore the limitations of self are apparent.

The realisation of other perspectives is dependent on an initial realisation of the perspective of self. This is what I term Reflexive-Self-Consciousness, the leading book on that concept being by Eugene Halliday. Once the subjective consciousness is reflexive upon itself after developing the initial sense of self, it then naturally begins to detach from the one-ness and ‘others’ owing to societal and cultural influence.

Tests to suggest a child assumes anything removed no longer exists would still fit this concept, as would those which emphasise that they expect something they have seen to be known by all.

Try explaining that to a baby whose favourite toy you have taken away!

Back to my earlier point that the first stage of consciousness experienced could be a peripheral, basic type. One reason for thinking this was the analogy to vision, with there always being a larger area intoto seen, and a smaller one in focus.

Can you expand on this as I’ve read it several times and am not sure entirely what you mean. If you’re re-wording what I’ve expressed many times that prior to the awareness of self, a consciousness collapsed from the consciousness wave is sentient to a much wider field of consciousness than the comparatively closed ‘particle’ of consciousness that is the reflexive-subjective-self-consciousness, then I agree, obviously. Although this by no logical definition can be termed a sub-conscious.

There is another point that I should have brought up sooner, namely how do we even know which part of our lives is viewed first by consciousness? Before I had encountered Anthony's ideas I had considered that some part of the subconscious might experience time in a whole perspective. Not simply have done the life run before but be seeing everything always.

I’m not sure what you’ve read of Tony’s but if you have read ITLAD and THE DAEMON then this question should answer itself. I’ve also written extensively on the differences between Eidolonic and Daemonic Time starting a couple of years ago over on BLOG and in recent times (all puns intended) here on FORUM:

BLOG: How Soon Is Now [by Karl L Le Marcs]
BLOG: Peakeian Daemonology [by Karl L Le Marcs]
BLOG: How Soon Is Now (2) – The Phantom Premise [by Karl L Le Marcs]
FORUM: Can The Daemon See The Future? [by Neo]

and some excellent discussions on your very considerations within the following threads also:

FORUM: An Experiment With Time (or Synchrondipity) [by Anthony Peake]
FORUM: The Consciousness Waveform [by Mike01]
FORUM: WORLD PREMIERE of CtCw: KUCI Radio Interview [by Karl L Le Marcs]

Again I must request, as I did in my last reply, which again appears to have been ignored, that:

"If you can then address some of my counter-questions to your input (which have been largely ignored) and then come back with whatever questions you may have at that time, this would help further the discussions."

[A Dark Philosopher]

...Those of us that meditate and dream vividly know that we can access much more beyond our subjective selves.
If the sense of self is removed, then access to this higher level would be much easier and because there's no external frame of reference. The foetus exists as a collapsed particle of consciousness within the womb, BUT experiences the REAL reality as it has no sense of self or subjective awareness.
I feel that there is a wonderful lesson to be learned here. Letting go of the ego allows us to experience higher states of consciousness and is a path to ourselves and the oneness that connects us all.

In light of what I've just been highlighting to Brown, in my last response (above), this whole section of JoJo's is beautifully descriptive and demonstrates perfectly how 'self' and 'ego' distort the one-ness of consciousness into the illusory separation that is then perceived by humanity, and especially those who pursue 'self' and 'ego'.

Thank you Jo, for this beautiful contribution, I expect Ruth will appreciate it also, when she reads it.

[rafromca]

Letting go of the ego allows us to experience higher states of consciousness and is a path to ourselves and the oneness that connects us all.

Yes this is far easier to say than to do, I believe. The ego is very "tricksy" Thanks for the input Karl and Jo-Jo.

In a conversation between Sheldrake and Matthew Fox, Sheldrake said that he thought the sun might be conscious. Is this plausible in your opinions?

[Brown]

I used the term algebra to mean discerning the nature of what was not known by what was known. Not in a literal calculation.

How else is that which is not known discerned, other than by what is already known?

To reiterate, my point is that we don't have enough data in the first place to decide this.

On the point of self-awareness, I agree that it is in place by 3, if not before. But my argument is that the child knows only one perspective and is aware of only one. It still knows of it's own perspective though, and does not suspect any others are out there as well.

How can a functioning consciousness ‘know’ of its (not it’s) perspective whilst not being self-aware? That’s a huge contradiction.

The child's perspective is its universe. It knows of its own pain, pleasure experience etc. The outside world appears as a changing set of images sounds etc. In essence my view is an inside out version of yours and vice versa.

Back to my earlier point that the first stage of consciousness experienced could be a peripheral, basic type. One reason for thinking this was the analogy to vision, with there always being a larger area intoto seen, and a smaller one in focus.

Can you expand on this as I’ve read it several times and am not sure entirely what you mean. If you’re re-wording what I’ve expressed many times that prior to the awareness of self, a consciousness collapsed from the consciousness wave is sentient to a much wider field of consciousness than the comparatively closed ‘particle’ of consciousness that is the reflexive-subjective-self-consciousness, then I agree, obviously. Although this by no logical definition can be termed a sub-conscious.

We'll call it Mervyn if you like. A wide field level.

Interesting set of links. Nothing unfamiliar though concept wise.

Again I must request, as I did in my last reply, which again appears to have been ignored, that:

"If you can then address some of my counter-questions to your input (which have been largely ignored) and then come back with whatever questions you may have at that time, this would help further the discussions."

It concerns me that you keep stating this which means the purpose of my posts has been misread.

[A Dark Philosopher]

I used the term algebra to mean discerning the nature of what was not known by what was known. Not in a literal calculation.

How else is that which is not known discerned, other than by what is already known?

To reiterate, my point is that we don't have enough data in the first place to decide this.

By that logic we shouldn't try!

On the point of self-awareness, I agree that it is in place by 3, if not before. But my argument is that the child knows only one perspective and is aware of only one. It still knows of it's own perspective though, and does not suspect any others are out there as well.

How can a functioning consciousness ‘know’ of its (not it’s) perspective whilst not being self-aware? That’s a huge contradiction.

The child's perspective is its universe. It knows of its own pain, pleasure experience etc. The outside world appears as a changing set of images sounds etc. In essence my view is an inside out version of yours and vice versa.

By "child" do you mean, in utero foetus, pre-birth baby, post-birth baby, infant or child aged 3 and above? And "IT knows of ITS pain" has within it an implied awareness of subjective self ('its' being a possessive) which is lacking in the vast majority of infants below the age of 3, as the studies show. Your view unfortunately appears locked in that blatant contradiction.

Back to my earlier point that the first stage of consciousness experienced could be a peripheral, basic type. One reason for thinking this was the analogy to vision, with there always being a larger area intoto seen, and a smaller one in focus.

Can you expand on this as I’ve read it several times and am not sure entirely what you mean. If you’re re-wording what I’ve expressed many times that prior to the awareness of self, a consciousness collapsed from the consciousness wave is sentient to a much wider field of consciousness than the comparatively closed ‘particle’ of consciousness that is the reflexive-subjective-self-consciousness, then I agree, obviously. Although this by no logical definition can be termed a sub-conscious.

We'll call it Mervyn if you like. A wide field level.

Any move away from calling it 'subconscious' is beneficial!

Interesting set of links. Nothing unfamiliar though concept wise.

Hmmm, not sure you could possibly have read through all of them but I may be testing you later............

Again I must request, as I did in my last reply, which again appears to have been ignored, that:

"If you can then address some of my counter-questions to your input (which have been largely ignored) and then come back with whatever questions you may have at that time, this would help further the discussions."

It concerns me that you keep stating this which means the purpose of my posts has been misread.

As it equally concerns me that you've still ignored many of my responses to your comments.

This part of this thread discussion appears drawn to an end to me, so if you have any other angle on the original question I'd be interested to read that.

[A Dark Philosopher]

Thanks for the input Karl and Jo-Jo.
In a conversation between Sheldrake and Matthew Fox, Sheldrake said that he thought the sun might be conscious. Is this plausible in your opinions?

Ruth: If by conscious you mean the in-formational connectivity from all matter merely being energy condensed to a slow vibration then, in that sense, yes, as the sun itself is made from the very same fundamental particles as everything else in the universe and indeed that it is within these cauldrons of intense heat that the fusion of hydrogen into helium originates, then equally so, the sun is indeed conscious. The universe is dynamic, coherent and non-local.

However, if by conscious you mean the same 'sort' of consciousness that we experience [anthropologically] then very much no. But I rather like the first interpretation myself.

[Brown]

By "child" do you mean, in utero foetus, pre-birth baby, post-birth baby, infant or child aged 3 and above? And "IT knows of ITS pain" has within it an implied awareness of subjective self ('its' being a possessive) which is lacking in the vast majority of infants below the age of 3, as the studies show. Your view unfortunately appears locked in that blatant contradiction.

As we have been discussing children from ages 0-3, that was the intended group under discussion still. The concept of subjective self is lost on most in this age group as they only feel thier own sensations. Self is a relative term, and the infants have yet to grasp this. They have thier own selves and they assume this is the universe.

[Brown]

Brown wrote:
Tests to suggest a child assumes anything removed no longer exists would still fit this concept, as would those which emphasise that they expect something they have seen to be known by all.
Try explaining that to a baby whose favourite toy you have taken away!

I would like to know if you had any actual thoughts on the interpretation. Or the other experiments showing how children around the under 3 mark assume what they see is observed universally.

[A Dark Philosopher]

As we have been discussing children from ages 0-3, that was the intended group under discussion still. The concept of subjective self is lost on most in this age group as they only feel thier own sensations. Self is a relative term, and the infants have yet to grasp this. They have thier own selves and they assume this is the universe.

Firstly, if "the concept of subjective self is lost on most in this age group" then how can they feel "thier"[sic] own sensations. "Their" is a possessive, so requires a corresponding sense of self, which you just said "is lost on most in this age group"; again, the circular contradiction you've stated a few times now repeated again when you said "Self is a relative term, and the infants have yet to grasp this. They have thier [sic] own selves and they assume this is the universe."

Secondly, prior to the self-awareness the child has a functioning sentient consciousness that is only reactive to sensory input, much in the same way that a plant is reactive to heat or light. The child will, however, mimic and copy, learn and begin to utilise a proactive sentience leading to the sense of self and reflexive self consciousness.

I would like to know if you had any actual thoughts on the interpretation. Or the other experiments showing how children around the under 3 mark assume what they see is observed universally.

Personally I think the interpretation is hugely flawed for the reasons I've outlined a number of times. How a child below 3yrs with no sense of self can therefore be in any way "assumptive" of anything is another significant contradiction. The functioning level of consciousness without the reflexive-self-consciousness conditioning is that of a REACTIVE sentience. If one is reactive one cannot be assumptive if one is not reflective.

I totally agree that a lack of conscious self-awareness integrates the functioning sentience to a universal consciousness but this can, in no way, be sensed, assumed or reflected upon by that very same consciousness until the sense of self is developed.

"We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively as collapsed particles of consciousness from the objective consciousness wave. "

Karl L Le Marcs - Collapsing the Consciousness wave (CtCW) (2008)

"This interconnection (or accommodation)
of all created things to each other,
brings it about that each simple substance
has relations that express all the others,
and consequently,
that each simple substance
is a perpetual, living mirror of the universe.
Just as the same city
viewed from different directions
appears entirely different
and, as it were, multiplied perspectively,
in just the same way
it happens that,
because of the infinite multitude of simple substances,
there are, as it were, just as many different universes,
which are, nevertheless,
only perspectives on a single one, . . .
And this is the way of obtaining as much variety as possible,
but with the greatest order possible,
that is, it is the way of obtaining as much perfection as possible. "

G. W. Leibniz - The Monadology (1714)