Some are realists and materialist when it comes to the origin of awareness while others prefer panpsychism — Benj96

Porque no los dos?

is all matter conscious and it is simply the arrangement of molecules that establishes awareness. — Benj96

Yes.

We don't know.

That's the short answer. I like David Chalmers arguments for pansychism. Quite a few neuroscientists do to.

That title grabbed your attention so while I still have it, where does the conscious awareness of a newly conceived baby come from? One day the embryo is a ball of cells and the next it has a neural plate and then tube and hey presto its kicking and dreaming and thinking. — Benj96

Where does the ability for a plant to photosynthesize come from? One day the plant is a seed and the next it has a fully formed leaf and hey presto it’s converting light energy into chemical energy.

:cool: :up:

Ergo all matter is photosynthetic :snicker: :roll:

Unfortunately we first have to define consciousness. Sorry.

Unfortunately we first have to define consciousness. Sorry. — John Onestrand

Consciousness is the ability to define things.

Always happy to help.

the ability to define things. — unenlightened

...by pointing symbols at them.

precisely :lol:

where does the conscious awareness of a newly conceived baby come from? — Benj96

Damned if I know. I think it has to do with a stork.

Conciousness is the Ability to Describe.

So is the developing brain simply following genetic rules. — Benj96

My guess is that the developing brain does follow genetic rules, but that's not the whole story. For one thing, the mother's body is also following genetic rules, and her execution is likely to have some effect on the fetus. For instance, a slight increase of hormones might tip development in direction A, B, or C... If the mother drinks and smokes (the criminal pregnancy) alcohol and various products of combustion may affect the fetus. Obviously, using hard drugs won't help the fetus either. Diseases can interfere with the fetus.

I don't know whether fetal brains are much influenced by the environment outside the womb. Does hearing Mozart affect the fetus? Some people think it does (no idea, myself). What about punk rock?

So, yes: DNA is followed. But there is more to it. And it stays that way for life. DNA governs the brain, but lots of other stuff also affects the brain.

where does the conscious awareness of a newly conceived baby come from? — Benj96

As a matter of fact, I don't know. But I have a hypothesis, based on the philosophical notion of evolutionary Emergence, and the scientific concept of physical Phase Change. Any new properties or qualities, such as awareness of the environment, "come from" a chain of prior Causes, and from the integrated state of an individualized functional System. But the Potential for those later phases of being were Latent, as encoded information, in the "DNA" of the evolutionary chain, all the way back to the original Singularity (the Cosmic Egg).

Ancient theorists imagined that the immaterial Soul (Life & Consciousness) was a gift from God, that was magically inserted into the material Body at some point between Fertilization and Quickening. But I think gradual emergence makes more sense in the light of modern Science : e.g. 1> Fertilization is the first sign of Life, 2> Quickening is the first sign of Awakening Awareness, and 3> Birth is the literal emergence of an incomplete Person, pending further development of qualities such as walking & reasoning. Of course, we can quibble over the details. But that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it . . . for now. :nerd:


Holistic Emergence : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Phase Transition : During a phase transition of a given medium, certain properties of the medium change, often discontinuously, as a result of the change of external conditions, such as temperature, pressure, or others . . . The emergence of superconductivity in certain metals and ceramics when cooled below a critical temperature.

Systems Theory : Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.

Emergence of Mind : Mind is an emergent quality (function) of physical brain systems, yet is not a physical property of any of their atoms or subsystems. Matter is what a brain is made of, but Mind is what it does. Functions are also dynamic & emergent, not static features of matter. They require time & change to reveal their immaterial existence.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

PS__Babies come from fat Mommies

from mothers womb.

I thought they were delivered by storks to their parents?

In my opinion, the assumption that consciousness is binary in nature, would be the wrong place to start. It doesn't seem like a case of definitely conscious or absolutely no consciousness. It makes more sense to view awareness on a continuum. A more realistic question would be: "How much consciousness does a newborn baby possess?"

We don't know. — Bert Newton

I don't think the nature of consciousness is beyond understanding, either. While self-awareness initially seems odd, it becomes more practical the more you reflect on how the human brain works. Here's something on the subject I posted in another thread:

The conscious part of our brain is tasked with executive function. It casts judgment on the rest of the brain, proliferating or inhibiting the competing urges generated by the unconscious areas of the brain. Once you reflect on that, it doesn't seem so surprising that consciousness arises. If the cluttered chatter of the unconscious mind can be improved by organization and judgment, then the thing that serves as the judge/organizer likely has a bird's-eye view of the sum of all those sensory inputs. The process of that bird's-eye view itself would be human consciousness. We have awareness for the purpose of decision-making. Decision-making would be more difficult without awareness, so that's why consciousness ("something") takes place.

The conscious part of our brain is tasked with executive function. It casts judgment on the rest of the brain, proliferating or inhibiting the competing urges generated by the unconscious areas of the brain. Once you reflect on that, it doesn't seem so surprising that consciousness arises. If the cluttered chatter of the unconscious mind can be improved by organization and judgment, then the thing that serves as the judge/organizer likely has a bird's-eye view of the sum of all those sensory inputs. The process of that bird's-eye view itself would be human consciousness. We have awareness for the purpose of decision-making. Decision-making would be more difficult without awareness, so that's why consciousness ("something") takes place.

Prove it.

Couldn't a sufficiently advanced robot be programmed to do what we do without consciousness?

The conscious part of our brain is tasked with executive function. It casts judgment on the rest of the brain, proliferating or inhibiting the competing urges generated by the unconscious areas of the brain.

I think you are conflating consciousness with conscious mental processes. You are still talking about "the easy problem" of consciousness, not "the hard problem".

Couldn't a sufficiently advanced robot be programmed to do what we do without consciousness? — Bert Newton

Yes, I can certainly imagine a robot that does human tasks without the use of consciousness. But if you mean the robot literally functions exactly the same, I would say no; you wouldn't be able to make a perfectly-human robot without also creating a functional consciousness in the processes.

I think you are conflating consciousness with conscious mental processes. — Bert Newton

Why can't consciousness be a reflection of the processes that take place in the physical human brain? That's exactly the point I'm trying make; consciousness is a very unsurprising phenomena, given what we see happening in the brain. You could illustrate this connection by swinging a baseball bat at my head: doing so would likely disrupt the functioning of my brain; and my experience of consciousness would also be disrupted at the same time. Both things seem very dependent on the other. Why not view them as one-and-the-same? What do we gain by trying to separate one from the other? What is the justification for making this distinction?

Chalmers summarizes the "easy problem" versus "hard problem" by saying that experience would "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained". Reading lines of computer code, and running an app on your phone, are two different ways to experience the same set of information. If running the app is analogous to experiencing consciousness, Chalmers would say that running the app serves no obvious purpose; because one could derive just as much use from reading the computer code. He would question why the option to execute the code even exists. But you couldn't play a game of Blackjack by simply reading what the programmer wrote. So what is more useful to a human: experienced consciousness, or un-experienced consciousness?

Regarding the original post, a new human will start to experience consciousness at the same moment their brain begins to function (this point would likely be inside the womb). However, it's a difficult point to define, because the quantified amount of consciousness (functioning) is so small. One would have to compare it to a standard of 100% consciousness ("normal functioning"). Is the average child born with 100% consciousness? Is complete consciousness not achieved until adulthood? Is the amount of consciousness that one posses also dependent on what kind of education they have experienced throughout their life? Does consciousness start to decline as we enter old age? Or is it stronger than ever after so many years of experience?

I don't know but I would got to neuroscientists first for an answer and they unanimously agree they can't pinpoint the conscious experience in the brain. The question remains: where is it?

Complex neural networks seem to be functioning for the easy problem so looking at consciousness as possibly a field like time or space is a lot more compelling.

As I said though, if you can prove consciousness is simply the emergent property of neural complexity then go ahead and prove it, otherwise I'll wait for the brain science.

I don't know but I would got to neuroscientists first for an answer and they unanimously agree they can't pinpoint the conscious experience in the brain. The question remains: where is it? — Bert Newton

If someone (a neuroscientist, for example) says that they couldn't find the consciousness, I would challenge their assumption that it could be found to begin with.

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to separate the consciousness into a magical invisible spirit or anything like that. I don't think the consciousness exists independent of the brain.

I'm asserting that consciousness is merely a function of the brain. More importantly, it is the only possible function that could arise from the given physical framework. Since the functionality is entirely dependent on the brain, I don't think it would be incorrect to refer to the consciousness as the brain.

How do you know that the "brain science" is lacking? If you haven't seen the evidence yet, then you must have some idea of what that evidence would look like (in order to know it doesn't exist). I'm curious to learn what your specific principal is that allows the distinction to be made between the consciousness and the physical brain. Why is it a logical fallacy to equate the two?

How do you know that the "brain science" is lacking? — Bird-Up

There are so many theories but no evidence so far as to how consciousness functions.

what your specific principal is that allows the distinction to be made between the consciousness and the physical brain — Bird-Up

No doubt there is a connection between the brain and consciousness but we don't yet know how. I'll leave that to the experts, especially neuroscientists, who are in a good position for that. As they state that they do not know themselves I wouldn't dare to say anything for certain.

...If you look at the wiring of the brain it is a network of electro-chemical pulses. It's not so much different to our computers (only vastly more complex). How could such pulses give us the feeling of having an experience?

It's easy to understand the process of watching clouds in the sky. The light goes into the eye and the image is rendered in the brain. But we have cameras that can do this. What is this extra phenomena that makes me aware of it? Why do we need to know what the clouds and sky feel like? Why do I need to be aware of what my eye and brain are doing?

You might be correct that it is just certain wiring, I really don't know.

So, yes: DNA is followed. But there is more to it. And it stays that way for life. DNA governs the brain, but lots of other stuff also affects the brain. — Bitter Crank

Not to be pedant but this is not really the case. DNA is merely a protein cook book, and it does not "govern" much. In particular it doesn't seem to "drive" embryogenesis all by itself. Other things, collectivelly referred to as "epigenetics", come into play that direct embryogenesis, and read and interpret the DNA cook book.