Unless there wasn't a time when consciousness didn't exist. If it is fundamental, a property of things, as, for example, mass and charge are, then it was always there. There was always experiencing. Yes, reality started perceiving itself when structures of perception evolved. At which point, there was the experience of perception.

I have a lot of sympathy with your stance and there is an interpretation of my stance which fits with yours. But it comes from an entirely different root to what is being discussed in this thread.

I’ve been thinking of raising the issue of electrical charge and consciousness. As you mention charge, this seems like an appropriate time.
It occurs to me that consciousness might be emergent from the presence of charge in matter (mass, or extension, ie spacetime). Or the other way around, the presence of matter (spacetime) in charge. Although when it comes to extension in space and time and charge, they are all a consequence of extension and rely on it to have existence.

To put that simply, space/time/charge emerge together. Consciousness could be emergent in the presence of charge in matter. The animating part, electricity. We can see how electricity and charge play a fundamental role in life processes. Particularly in the central nervous system, indeed in thought, sentience and the exalted state of consciousness observed in humans. We are an electrical processing device, which processes information for the purpose of increasing our chances of survival.

So rather like your train set aeroplane analogy. We have developed a processing device to be better at survival, but inadvertently produced something which could take us out into space.

This is that the Buddha's teaching is like the stick used to stir a fire to help get it burning. But when the fire is burning, the stick is tossed in.

A beautiful metaphor, something I have acted out many times. Thankyou.

No, science has not yet put together the entire puzzle that will answer the question of consciousness, but all the pieces of the puzzle so far point to consciousness being a function of neurological processes. Any other theory is just a matter of wishful thinking. — Questioner

:100:

‘The promissory notes of materialism’

‘The promissory notes of materialism’ — Wayfarer

...says the ChatGPT subscriber.

Do you think there is ever going to be a paradigm that does not have self and other? What does it mean to not have self-other? Will all minds and consciousnesses merge into one?
— Patterner

I can only say that 'transcending the self-other distinction' is a recurring motif in mysticism and the perennial philosophies, generally. That is why 'Nirvāṇa without remainder' is said to be only possible on the far side of death. — Wayfarer

For millennia, various traditions have been trying to accomplish this. But the practitioners still answer to their individual names, and it's said the goal can't be achieved while alive.

What is your vision off the future? Will we no longer use the sciences that developed by ignoring consciousness? Will we not live in houses, not use electricity, not use propulsion systems and math to launch ships to Mars and beyond?
— Patterner

I don't believe interstellar travel is at all feasible for terrestrial creatures such as ourselves. We might be able to send ultrasmall computers via laser energy, but we'll never send large metal and composite material vessels with living organisms in them. Mars is a possibility, but the idea of colonizing Mars is a Musk fever dream. (I'm writing a 'psi-phi' novel on this very theme at the moment, although constantly sidetracking myself with forum posts.) — Wayfarer

Fine, let's use another example. Will doing away with the subject–object paradigm mean we will no longer use our current sciences to try to find or develop better energy sources?

Although I really don't have any idea what your position is, I know that we both think consciousness is a bigger, and/or more ubiquitous, part of the universe than many people posting here do. That doesn't mean we will, or should, discard physical sciences. There probably are times when one aspect of reality is not needed for, and possibly interferes with, our pursuits in one area or another. There will probably always be people wasting their time trying to prove that things like sodium ions passing through the membranes of neurons produce consciousness. But it might be equally foolish to insist that we cannot find way to produce lighter, stronger metals without first figuring out how to add consciousnes as an ingredient.

Any other theory is just a matter of wishful thinking. — Questioner

Another expert psychologist on the forum! What causes materialism? Too much breast milk?