Bayesian Information (including Consciousness & Qualia) is what used to be referred to as "Spirit/Soul" — Gnomon

what are you meaning there? Are you making up your own terminology? 'Bayesian Information' should be related to using Bayes conditional probabilities in forming the information. Yet, that has nothing to do with "Spirit/Soul" stuff.

FWIW, my thesis does conclude that there must be a First Cause (or Enformer), which is "super-natural", in the sense that it must exist logically prior to the emergence of space-time in the Big Bang. — Gnomon

why could it not be a randomly formed set of initial conditions for the system(s) to evolve from there? no need for super-natural stuff.

thanks for clarifying that. can you point me to a research paper on that you say? However, it does make my point that while the plant benefits from quantum 'magic' stuff at the nano/micro scale the magic stuff/process is quickly lost when the system has more than a 1000 atoms, where classical problems/losses/processes take over. So, does not scale up to be the framework or foundation for any macro-scale system, unless, for example, you macro system is based on a requiring perfect random number generator. ;-)

Consciousness is a behavior that defies objective modeling. — jambaugh

Upon what (theory or evidence) basis have you come to this conclusion? I see it otherwise, as very tractable (yet, extremely hard) to model and simulate.

BTW, in my model, Consciousness is not a behavior, despite external agents observing it as such. Please explain how you see it fundamentally as a behavior carried out by the brain.

behavior :
"the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others."

For instance, the one hundred percent efficiency in photosynthetic translation of light into chemical energy during reaction center activation exceeds even superconductors, or the — Enrique

from where did you come up that idea? Let's not allow the 'magic' of quantum mechanics to be the stuff of selling snake oils...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

...The Gibbs free energy for converting a mole of CO2 to glucose is 114 kcal, whereas eight moles of photons of wavelength 600 nm contains 381 kcal, giving a nominal efficiency of 30%.[2] However, photosynthesis can occur with light up to wavelength 720 nm so long as there is also light at wavelengths below 680 nm to keep Photosystem II operating (see Chlorophyll). Using longer wavelengths means less light energy is needed for the same number of photons and therefore for the same amount of photosynthesis. For actual sunlight, where only 45% of the light is in the photosynthetically active wavelength range, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. .. which results in a maximum overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation.[1]

I would imagine that any relative inefficiency in DNA is because of the balance it must maintain between the coding functions and the self-replicative, mutational functions. — Enrique

I strongly doubt that. Under the theory of evolution, it should be not much more than reusing/repurposing legacy code to be part of achieving new functions. Just ask Microsoft, the king of such legacy/redundant 'bloat code' . evolved complex software/hardware will always become spaghetti 'gobligook' within only a few generations, despite it achieving superior functional/performance results.

So in your estimation, EEGs aren't finely tuned enough to pick up the causality of standing wave states? What kind of research has been carried out on brain waves? — Enrique

correct, not only are they aggregate population statistics on a region of surface tissue, but are only a subset of the kinds of waves that are known (and unknown) to propagate; e.g., there are many long range chemical waves that have been observed. While brain wave research is extensive I have not seen anything that motivates me to find them to be a direct representation of any kind of coherent computational framework. I'm currently modeling them as the coherent reference wave in the global hologram to select various modes/planes of phase-space behavior and/or to synch up the system made of very distal networks/modules.

re "How could an additive standing wave get instantiated in matter?"
if the propagating fabric was made of an array of nodes in a clear matrix format and all nodes only connected to its neighbors and only one kind/frequency of wave energy is transmitted, and the matrix is all contained w/in the same boundary condition then the standing waves would be visually/imaging obvious. However, each such assumption is violated with a completely opposite situation in the brain. Just think how hard it would be to observe a standing wave transmitted in CDMA, TDMA, spread spectrum, frequency hopping, etc. comm methods. Then to make the matter exponentially worse, the various standing waves might not be encoded into the neuron’s firing at all (so not observable in any EEG), but could be encoded in the pattern of trigger thresholds and/or synapse inhibitory/excitory, etc. factors. Then you have to map out and flatten the trillions of neuronal connections into a Cartesian space to ‘see’ the standing wave patterns/structure, which may (likely) not be a global wave pattern but countless sub-module resonant systems that aggregate into a global pattern. Then, things like consciousness (in my theory) are not physical structures to be found but time-evolving energy/wave flow conditions that only temporarily exist as a projected hologram in the internal (and extremely contorted, transformed) phase-space. For me, studying that gobligook is a waste of time on figuring out things like consciousness, cognitive functions, intelligence, etc. Developing my own theories/models (possibly informed by scientific observations) that get the job done is much more tractable/doable for me.

so, according to your beliefs/thesis, it will be impossible for AI implemented on computational machines to attain human level qualia consciousness of themselves? If you say 'yes' then, IMHO, your philosophy on the subject is not so much metaphysics but supernatural/Theological.

It's impossible to know whether the world is an illusion or not because our mind and our senses, the only access points we have to knowing the truth, are unreliable. So is everyone except you a p-zombie? Since you can't trust your mind or your senses, it follows that you can't know that either. So hard solipsism is untenable - certainty on the matter is impossible. — TheMadFool

I tend to agree with that. It is not too different, IMHO, from Earthlings saying that we are the only sentient life in the whole universe, and the religious going even further saying the whole universe was created to serve us. No matter what illusions your belief system operates under, we can all agree on the math of probabilities makes such beliefs exceedingly improbable.


More generally, I'd say the only reason why we believe in our own consciousness as being real and existing is because we have no strong experiential evidence to the contrary. In my current model, consciousness is a resonant condition within the internal and external boundaries the “I” operates within. However, the self-awareness aspect of experiential/qualia consciousness also tracks the time evolution of this resonant consciousness wave function (currently, I’m modelling that as a quantum pilot wave) and we call that (quantum knot) history as defining our unique thinking existence as a coherent, self-consistent emanation of the same consciousness cognitive agent, so we are completely calling that time evolved resonant wave pattern the “I” ‘story’ and concluding that we exist at least as a thinking being. This is at least one way that I believe Descartes gets it wrong. For example, in brain with a multiple personality disorder, I’d says that they do not have a single resonant consciousness wave function that collapses into one coherent, self-consistent emanation of the same consciousness cognitive agent, but many. So, any one of the resonant consciousness wave functions will only resonate with the resonant consciousness wave function (of its multiple personality choices) that is a coherent time evolution (quantum knot) history with its own wave function signature. That resonant consciousness would still be aware of the other a time evolution (quantum knot) histories (of the other people/personalities in their head) but ascribe those to supernatural hijacking of their brains/thoughts (e.g., demonic possession, spirits, other ‘people’ in their brains, etc.), thus they would not say that those other, equally valid versions of themselves, are part of them, but foreign mental invaders.

In this way, I’d say that consciousness can never be self-assess as a snapshot in time, but has to be part of a self-consistent path history (like a story/narrative) that all points to the same resonant focal point/pattern that you call you. Mess with that, and your sense of self consciousness/identity should degrade and vanish into a chaos ideas, facts, memories but without any form, function, or purpose, which I not call that ‘thought’ or ‘thinking’, so a problem to the Descartes way of evidencing oneself.

Furthermore, under my framework, to establish one self-consciousness we have to be able to explore all our boundary conditions that ware resonating within and their nature must be accessible/determinable wrt their form, function, or purpose in influencing the landscape that the consciousness agent in question is resonating with and within. Then, the consciousness agent in question would have to observe a time-evolution history path where their ‘thought’ could in-fact modify those boundary conditions and that had a correlated, esp. if *expected*, effect on their conscious state of being to ‘feel’ they are alive and the executive center of the (resonating) system. Then, the consciousness agent in question would have to learn and use those associations as tools to manipulate itself (the best it can) to achieve goal states of being. Towards a definition qualia consciousness, I’m thinking that the degree that the consciousness agent in question can do the above, it has ever higher orders of qualia consciousness.

In the context of the Cogito Ergo Sum vs. Solipsism points of view, I’d say that my above model applies to both, but both are malformed hypothesis b/c they lack to true mechanics of how consciousness works, so both are far to simplistic ways of forcing a circle into a square, and there will be arguments and evidence for/against each b/c neither is a suitable, complete model. To extend my largely Solipsism supporting framework to the Cogito Ergo Sum view, I believe I just extend the sensory motor boundary of one’s consciousness resonance condition to include other humans of like mind and all the same above mechanics work, and to the extreme case you get a mob, acting as one mind/ consciousness towards a unified form, function, and purpose. They lose individuality and together become the new consciousness of a superorganism much like individual atoms can become lost into a Bose-Einstein condensate fifth state of (consciousness) matter. Once they get out of the superorganism (Bose-Einstein condensate) consciousness state they almost have no memory or explanation of how they could come to think or act to kill/destroy/eradicate/etc. and go back to their comparatively boring mundane lives as individual consciousness agents. I’d say the human ability for this superorganism consciousness state of mind/being evidences against the purist Solipsism views.
I could go on and on, but these are my basic ideas so far on the subject.

Cheers!

I'm personally not too focused on how the brain does anything b/c often biological systems are 'gobligook' ways to carry out otherwise more strait forward methods (think how DNA coding and control circuits are super redundantly/incoherently implemented), which can be theoretically VERY misleading. That said, I do inform myself of the biology to at least gain confidence that I may be on a right theoretical track if I see evidence of my direction occurring in the biological models. In this regard I have found one esoteric research paper that found an inexplicable phenomenon which I interpret as evidence for my pilot wave model potentially being implemented by the brain, which would directly tie into some kind of holographic phase space framework.

How does a holographic phase space work? It would be cool if you could explain variability in the experience of "I" or "self" as a material phenomenon, correlated with specific molecules, cells and emergent brain structures, a synthesis with neuroscience. — Enrique

well nothing like that exists as far as I know. I am making it up as I go. Have not gone to implementation mechanics yet, just establishing the tools and methods conceptually. At a top level, I'm modeling the conscious "I" in an internal "imagination" sandbox which is a central resonant space that formed primarily via a sophisticated non-verbal linguistic mechanics and a holographic phase space. I think the non-verbal linguistic mechanics is more like ‘access’ consciousness based on my limited reading on the subject. A connectionist implementation model might be best for that in my system. For the qualia/experience consciousness I expect to rely on a holographic phase space where all the linguistic & sensory/motor objects are transformed into waves which interfere with each other and boundary conditions in meaningful ways. I am modeling the qualia/experience consciousness as a resonant condition that does not actually exist on its own but only emerges as the waves in the container sense the boundary conditions and propagation media landscape to form something you can think of like a standing wave which represents the wave states of the whole system. You can think of the boundary conditions as an internal cognitive boundary/shapes on one side and sensory/motor boundary/shapes on the other side and when tuned to a particular ‘meaning’ waves that pulse the system a resonance condition may form that captures the character of the system as whole in one standing wave, which could be read out with connectionist networks recognizing the various interference patterns. In short, I’m hypothesizing that qualia/experience consciousness is the resonant sound you here when you thump a container, which resonant sound (e.g., holographic phased standing wave patterns) richly characterizes not only the shape of the container but its material parameters, this resonant sound waves is effectively coherently ‘aware’ of its whole system in a way that you never could be if you separately analyzed all the causal molecules and connections that form the container and the propagation medium the way that Integrated Information Theory suggests is consciousness; thus, at least one reason why (IMHO) their model is devoid of the qualia/experience.

My initial thought is that the brain's electromagnetic field may be a material signature of the integrative function you're looking to model, — Enrique

I don’t think the neuronal EMF in and of itself is so important b/c that has been measured a modeled extensively to little avail as to what the brain’s processing & representation modality is, which is a big mystery. I suspect it is one big holographic phase-space processor so you’ll hardly find any one node/area with discrete information/representation after the optic nerve projects Cartesian space images onto the visual cortex (V1-V4) on the back of the brain.

If you don't take Qualia seriously, — Gnomon

I do take what I understand to be 'qualia' (the vivid experience aspect of awareness) seriously; however, to me that has nothing necessarily to do with spiritual or soul stuff, and is instead purely a mental property of the brain which dies with it. You make it sound like qualia referred to by the consciousness research community has to be spiritual/soul stuff. Am I missing something there?

If you don't like the notion of "Creation via Evolution", — Gnomon

what is the basic concept? I do believe that evolution of any system creates new innovative configurations as if they were intelligently designed as such.

@Enrique

the pre-frontal cortex, a uniquely human brain region located at the base of the forehead that is correlated with personality and long-term planning, — Enrique

I believe you are wrong about that. Primates have it too. e.g., see:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03331972

When excitatory chemicals flood the brain, immature pre-frontal connectivity disengages from behavior, resulting in a generally less nuanced, micromanaged form of emotion-laden decision-making and awareness of personal consequences. If this is a valid assessment, it suggests that rationality is inextricably bound to physiological structure, and these structures are in some measure constraining — Enrique

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this already well known that rationality comes from the cortex (executive function) layer of the brain that suppresses urges. However, I'm not so sure that this is completely rationality or reasoning as you are calling it. Could it not be just allot of learned behavior dos and don'ts burned in/learned at the cortex level, and until the cortex fully matures it cannot effectively match situations where those apply or not, which is not so much ‘reasoning’ as ‘pattern matching’


BTW, one can simulate the immature prefrontal and cortex of teens and children by drinking various degrees of alcohol which disrupts the executive function (cortex) ability to suppress the lower (animal/reptile) brain impulses. Alcohol generally does not impair our emotive areas of the brain so they take control.

@Devans99,

re "Information - The Meaning Of Life " and "Producing/consuming information makes our lives happier. "

I think you got that wrong on basic principles. That is, the "The Meaning Of Life" must have some meaning itself, so any information consumed must have important meaning to the person. So, I'd say the consumption/creation of knowledge (the meaningful upgrading of information) is closer to the truth. However, even closer would be the consumption of wisdom (the meaningful upgrading of knowledge) is even closer to ones truth. Also, I believe you are falsely linking information consumption with happiness, which is no more true that food consumption. The path to healthy happiness is when you selectively produce/consume meaningful knowledge and wisdom that aligns your life/behavior/state of mind with your more true meaning/purpose in life (or at least one that brings you more peace than otherwise).

solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; — Wikipedia

I think you guys seem to accepting a false premise here. That is, I would say that the whole premise that you have any sense of certainty of knowledge or existence within one’s own mind cannot happen without knowledge of one’s embodiment within some external context. The “I” cannot exist unless it ‘knows’ what it is separate from. Humans form a mob of one mind because they are programed to turn their “I” into copies of the group “we”, where the “I” is lost, usually temporarily sometimes permanently. When a human becomes part of such a mob and shares common mind and actions then he/she ‘knows’ his mind is not alone or the only sentient “I” around, maybe much like as if they became that fifth state of (cognitive) matter, a (cognitive) Bose-Einstein condensate with the other minds.
IMHO, the “I” is no one thing but is formed mostly by many layers which we think as robotic automaton stuff, unified by some transcendental aspects that bring the qualia of conscious experience of “I”. Yet, I seriously doubt that qualia of conscious experience of you as “I” can happen without resonating with other external embodiments/minds. Otherwise, such a state of disconnected being is like having no language or models to describe (imagine) what “I” am about, so I’d be more like a reptile (just acting) than like a human (self-reflecting/introspection).

My view is that the nature of number and scientific laws can't be explained, as they're the basis of explanation; they are what we look to for explanations — Wayfarer

I just explained it above.

Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. — Wayfarer

that is kind of a creationist non-statement in the context of quantum mechanics and string theories, because it is not a miracle in that it just happens to be the myriad of universal physics constants happened to take on the values they have to give us the physics we have making our universe mostly driven by linear superposition, related rates, conservation of energy/mass, path reverseable, based on algorithmic addition and subtraction of whole/fraction numbers , etc.

However, they predict we exist in a foam of parallel universes with other physical constants in which none of our math could apply and indeed in which we could never have come to exist the way we are. No not a miracle, just every one of infinite combinations exist at once and we call the one we experience an ordered "miracle".

@Enrique,

I'm on the Kantian fence about whether reality itself operates according to mathematical laws. Math may be fundamental, but it could also be the product of a distinctly organic way of perceiving, perhaps only relevant as an evolutionary adaptation in relation to earth environments, with the foundation being chaotic fluctuation that our minds resolve into form as an approximating prediction mechanism — Enrique

I've never found that to be such a mystery as most think it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my mind, all math boils down to algorithmic addition and subtraction of whole/fraction numbers and related rates, all in one or more dimensions. This is exactly how the universe physics works on (calculations) combinations energy, matters, space/time, motion, etc. So, no big surprise it all can be described by our symbolic math that follows our universe’s core linear superposition model. And when it doesn’t we approximate, aggregate with regressions and statistical behavior and apply our basic math of that. N’est pah? Where am I thinking wrong here?

Yes. Qualia (information) is primordial. — Gnomon

@Gnomon and @Enrique, please explain in more concrete terms what you guys mean by this. Makes little sense to me for explaining the experiential qualia aspects of our consciousness. In my model (way of thinking), the only thing that is 'primordial' is the genetic-like programming that lays the basic interpretation/behavioral framework for our sensory/motor filtering, behavioral, and imaginative projections (e.g., like color red, sugar is sweet, etc.). Sounds like you guys are talking spiritual stuff, which would much more be a 'quack topic'.

@Enrique, it is a great topic that you bring up here. You have some interesting ideas, yet I strongly suspect, in my theoretical work, that quantum mechanics is, at best, at the fringes of influencing consciousness, not a prerequisite for enabling its operation as your example biological process require.
I, currently, model the qualia of consciousness as being centered on a cognitive agent having some type of sense of ‘I’ as being separate from some sort of external context.

The only “I” that is present as you think about and pose your question is completely related to your conscious self. Under the cognitive framework that I am developing, the ‘I’ is not much more than a qualia resonant condition that takes form and flows within a cognitive architecture that requires a closed loop (potentially virtual) sensory-motor experience that grounds and shapes the metes and bounds of the cognitive agent into an embodied agent experience. Under my model the “I” starts from a random or ground state and starts extending itself into whatever has the highest degree of spaciotemporal correlation with the cognitive agent’s intentions. In this way, while the embodied experience is an illusion, it is an integral part of what you have grown to call “I”, even if embodied parts of ‘you’ become physically removed; e.g., much like the phantom limb phenomenon, or how a prosthetic limb becomes part of ‘you’. Hence, this “I” that has come to be in the integrated qualia state as an embodied agent cannot be one and the same with that soul-like concept which is thought to be in a non-physical, energy state, existing in another dimension, possibly (highly speculative) linked/synchronized quantum mechanically. That is, the only connection between the two that I can (wildly) imagine are purposeful patterns of non-random quantum fluctuations in your brain that could come from your ‘soul’ in another dimension, which may bias your embodied agent’s behavior in important yet very general, qualitative ways, but such a ‘soul’ (or non-local) connection cannot be directly part of your conscious ‘I’ as they operate in different dimensions.

For the past 15+ years I’ve been, on and off (mostly off), developing various simulation models for all aspects of the human condition. I’ve put off consciousness for the backed of my work b/c it is the hardest area to make progress upon, but, realizing it could affect my global architecture, I recently (starting ~6yrs ago, and more seriously past 6mo) put in some preliminary effort to work out a first order model.
I am avoiding any direct quantum mechanics as being part of my consciousness simulation model. I that way I’m thinking differently than the mainstream ideas you mention (including Penrose, et. al). However, I do find the need to use macro-quantum mechanic like systems theories to help establish a framework enabling the kind of flowing resonant conditions I’m looking for. As of now, the ingredients of my first order consciousness simulation model include the following:
• Holographic phase space as the main cognitive fabric
• Meaningfully manipulating confinement Boundary conditions to perform calculations and selective state phase changes.
• Employing pilot-wave theory to achieve the macroscopic wave-particle duality I need to achieve a sort of global “I” (particle) state resonating with the global phase-space milieu capturing the whole at a point and the path taken (maybe like a quantum knot) being like a unique qualia experience.
• I’m initially avoiding entanglement concepts in my model. Instead, thinking to use soliton wave theory to transmit unique wave packet signatures within this phase space to bridge distal parts of the system (possibly unifying a multiplicity of sub-module pilot waves) with a common, unified “I” ‘experience’.
• Thinking to model each cognitive sub-module, of the multiplicity, as Bose-Einstein condensate types of phase change particle systems where they can only achieve quantum-like abilities (e.g., cognitive resonance, cognitive interference, cognitive tunneling, particle/wave duality, etc.) when they have been trained/cooled to a ground state truth (e.g., maybe like Boltzmann kind of thermal annealing learning, etc.) . As the sub-modules phase change to the Bose-Einstein condensate state they may interfere and tunnel with/to each other to form a global Bose-Einstein condensate state comprised of a resonating subset of the cognitive sub-modules with a global pilot wave path (quantum knot) which may simulate the unified “I” access and qualia consciousness ‘experience’.
• A parallel linguistic framework.
• A parallel statistical framework.
• A parallel reasoning framework.
• A parallel emotive framework.
• A parallel sensory-motor framework.
• A parallel imagination framework.
• And much more…

In this way, I’m looking at macro-scale quantum mechanics analogues as the most fruitful way I can build a consciousness system. I have no doubt that actual quantum mechanical effects (as you ponder) would naturally work with, and or enhance the macroscopic version I’m thinking of.

re "You are you. Always have been you. Always will be you."
how do you prove your belief in that? It is not true just b/c you say so. e.g., all the cells in "You" as a body are replaced every 6 mo, so your body is certainly not a constant 'you'. Cognitively, what you call 'you' at any given moment in your life is well documented to be pretty much a narrative of your self image formed by your own story and/or by those of others. So, the cognitive “You” is a made up story, and it is well known that you can be programmed to remember and believe things about yourself that never happened or were never part of “you”.

Re “I'm talking about what is beyond such, which is, to the relative mind, nothing, for it can't understand how something non-relative can exist.”
Words mean something. Webster defines “I” as “someone aware of possessing a personal individuality “. So, you are simply talking about a soul concept. However, if you want to be scientific then you cannot call “I” anything beyond what you can tangibly call part of yourself when you say “I”. Anything else relates to the soul, and is religious and/or supernatural, so belongs to a Theology or Mysticism discussion, not a Philosophy of Mind discussion.

Re “"You" does not point to the personal fluctuating I concept, but to the impersonal selfless awareness”
Not according to common usage of “I” by people and Webster, see above. Mostly mentally ill or religious people think of themselves as an “impersonal selfless awareness”.

For me, this is an unproductive direction to endeavor into. good luck...

@Yohan, I think you are posing a malformed question in that I believe you are confounding concepts of one's 'conscious self' with concepts of one's 'soul'.

re “Imagine your consciousness disassociating with your body, so that you can observe your body from a distance. …The question is, why is this body associated at all with my self?”
As such, this is not a plausible ‘imagine’ scenario b/c it requires supernatural soul-like happenings, which have no scientific or physical basis.

The only “I” that is present as you think about and pose your question is completely related to your conscious self. Under the cognitive framework that I am developing, the ‘I’ is not much more than a qualia resonant condition that takes form and flows within a cognitive architecture that requires a closed loop (potentially virtual) sensory-motor experience that grounds and shapes the metes and bounds of the cognitive agent into an embodied agent experience. Under my model the “I” starts from a random or ground state and starts extending itself into whatever has the highest degree of spaciotemporal correlation with the cognitive agent’s intentions. In this way, while the embodied experience is an illusion, it is an integral part of what you have grown to call “I”, even if embodied parts of ‘you’ become physically removed; e.g., much like the phantom limb phenomenon, or how a prosthetic limb becomes part of ‘you’. Hence, this “I” that has come to be in the integrated qualia state as an embodied agent cannot be one and the same with that soul-like concept which is thought to be in a non-physical, energy state, existing in another dimension. The only connection between the two that I can (wildly) imagine are purposeful patterns of non-random quantum fluctuations in your brain that could come from your ‘soul’ in another dimension, which may bias your embodied agent’s behavior in important yet very general, qualitative ways, but such a ‘soul’ connection cannot be part of your conscious ‘I’.

Re “It would seem I was associated in some way with this body before it came into existence. Or else it would have been born without me.”
Per my above model, your body was born w/o you, and ‘you’ only came to be as your cognitive framework became merged with your sensory-motor framework, which is likely why no-one has memories earlier than 2 years old, and certainly not before 1 yo. I would posit whatever you call ‘you’ did not exist before you could remember you existed, let alone before you were born. Whatever that was beforehand as an infant was in some quasi unconscious-disembodied state.