Is it possible for biological consciousness to wake up as a new consciousness?

[zhangjinyuan]

If biological sleep refers to the death of the old consciousness, sleep is the process by which the brain creates new consciousness, and when it wakes up the new consciousness invokes the brain's memory to continue working, this theory seems impossible to disprove
If the consciousness before sleep and the consciousness after sleep are not 1 consciousness, no matter what kind of consciousness, as long as the same brain memory, I do not feel the difference, then there seems to be no difference between consciousness and consciousness
Why is it that animals are born conscious, while human babies need to sleep long enough to wake up and replenish their energy before they become conscious? Elephants, after all, have very large brains, but they are also conscious from birth.
If consciousness is formed from memories in the brain, how does a newborn baby produce memories and consciousness even when his eyes are closed? Amnesiacs awaken with consciousness, which may not necessarily have to do with memories and memories stored in the brain

[C C]

[...] Why is it that animals are born conscious, while human babies need to sleep long enough to wake up and replenish their energy before they become conscious? Elephants, after all, have very large brains, but they are also conscious from birth.
If consciousness is formed from memories in the brain, how does a newborn baby produce memories and consciousness even when his eyes are closed? Amnesiacs awaken with consciousness, which may not necessarily have to do with memories and memories stored in the brain

"Consciousness" was arguably an umbrella term in the past that also had knowledge-based awareness subsumed under it (the latter falling out of innate templates and acquired memory, learning, and reasoning). That still may be the case when referencing the zombie consciousness of say, robots or autonomous machines which navigate through their environment.

But "consciousness" as increasingly used by scientists and philosophers today seems to discretely refer to phenomenal experience. They do an awful job of clarifying or simplifying what is meant by "experience", ranging from talk about qualia to "what it feels like to be something".

In the context of anti-supernatural materialism or "scientism" as Alex Rosenberg favorably defines it, death would be an exemplar of what non-consciousness is. Non-consciousness isn't even a presentation of nothingness and silence, much less conceptual or verbal apprehension of the latter. When one is dead, not only does one's personal thoughts and body sensations disappear, but also everything else: The whole world that was represented/constructed from electrochemical impulses from the various sense organs.

So flip that around to the opposite and there is the basic meaning of consciousness (or what the term has often become limited to nowadays): It is a presentation or showing of anything -- whether visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, gustatory or unknown alien possibilities.

Cognition, OTOH, is the understanding and identification of what is manifested (including a primary acknowledgment that "something is exhibited" to be classified, comprehended, and reacted to). Cognition is indeed dependent upon memory or information retention, as well as the capacity to infer general concepts, principles, and conclusions from repeated instances of specific things.

If biological sleep refers to the death of the old consciousness, sleep is the process by which the brain creates new consciousness, and when it wakes up the new consciousness invokes the brain's memory to continue working, this theory seems impossible to disprove
If the consciousness before sleep and the consciousness after sleep are not 1 consciousness, no matter what kind of consciousness, as long as the same brain memory, I do not feel the difference, then there seems to be no difference between consciousness and consciousness [...]

There's phenomenal experience (the manifestations) and then there's the cognitive/memory apparatus that personality or self is dependent upon. As mentioned above, consciousness today (especially in argument territory) is often narrowed to refer to the former rather than both.

The pattern of "self" associated with an individual human or organism does rely upon "proper" utilization and maintenance of data storage. Which can get disrupted in dreams or under the influence of psychoactive substances, and via brain damage -- to where one acts and decides and has interests different from the usual personal identity. However, the one generic constant is that introspective and extrospective affairs are still being displayed, in contrast to matter events occurring in the "dark" or the absence of everything as exemplified by non-consciousness. Some naturalists have gone so far as to espouse experience as being a kind of "generic subjectivity" distributed and underlying all brains associated with it, in contrast to the distinct selves dependent upon the local memory and cognitive processes of each particular neural organ: Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity.

[Syne]

Lots of nonsense to unpack there.

Science doesn't prove or disprove things. It can only ever provide strong evidence for or against a hypothesis. Only systems of logic, like mathematics, can provide proof, mostly of their own self-consistency. If it's impossible to find any evidence against a hypothesis, it is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and thus not science at all. It might as well be wild guess or wishful thinking.

In this particular case, there's not even any evidence that consciousness is created by the brain. Only the Libet experiment ever claimed to have evidence it was, and that has been debunked.
Human babies are born just as conscious as any animal. Nature just requires some animals be immediately ready to flee predators when born.

[C C]

[...] Why is it that animals are born conscious, while human babies need to sleep long enough to wake up and replenish their energy before they become conscious? Elephants, after all, have very large brains, but they are also conscious from birth. [...]

Going back to this, I wonder if you actually mean knowledge rather than consciousness. Animals are born with innate programming, humans supposedly less so. But even baby brains are not born a blank slate -- any more than a computer is a box empty of software before an operating system is installed.

Babies come with inherent pre-sets for knowledge acquisition and organizing it, possibly including a template for language. The latter has to have environmental content plugged into its placeholders at an early age, though, or the child may never fully become adept with all the attributes of language. IOW, the operating form may degrade quickly if it doesn't receive stimulation from surrounding conversations.

[Zinjanthropos]

There are times, just like this one, where there’s a tendency to separate ourselves from the universe. I’m part of it and if I‘m conscious then by association so is the universe. Big question is, if I’m asleep then is the universe sleeping? Maybe I’m not even conscious, just a tool used by the universe so it can maintain its consciousness. There, I just gave you a reason for life & survival.....the universe needs it or else. I feel used....lol

[confused2]

Some years ago I watched a baby seagull peering out from its nest for the first time. I am going to interpret the body language and behaviour of the little bird as 'Wow!'. As babies/children we head for the 'Wow!' zone. As adults not so much. Hypothesis, reset an adult back to the baby stage, keep the environment the same and same things will excite the baby as on the first time round. The baby will grow up to be the same person again. A child will pick out from the environment the things that excite it even with quite extreme changes in the environment. A child can make something out of almost nothing but not absolutely nothing. A child may end up with an unsatisfied 'Wow!' zone which it may or may not discover as an adult. An unsatisfied 'Wow!' zone (I hypothesize) leads to an unsatisfied adult.

Two days ago I made a little pond in my garden. Among the first to move in were some little spiders which just floated about on the surface. I thought they might be trapped so I helped them out. Two days later they were skittering about on the surface as though that was what they were born to do. Pond spiders can (probably) live without a pond but they are (probably) happier with a pond than without one.

[stryder]

When first born the human mind has yet to forge all it's neural connections (mostly because it's still in the process of creating the neurons to forge them to).  So that literally means there is a limitation on the level of functionality and interconnectivity compared to that of an adult.  In the animal kingdom, some species attempt to increase their survivability through longer gestation periods, as this allows the offspring to attempt to grow a greater neurological structure before birth which is quite handy if you happen to be being born into a herd of quadrupeds that migrate their feeding grounds etc.

I would pose that the perception of a baby is likely akin to being on LSD, considering they don't understand the concept of form initially, or the discipline of order and have nothing historical as reference to base or connect anything with.  (They are all things we grow up learning how to adapt to doing to literally create causality of logic.) 

It also explains the mixture of one minute laughing, the next crying in fear etc.

So more "WOW!!! mannnnn....."

[Zinjanthropos]

Some years ago I watched a baby seagull peering out from its nest for the first time. I am going to interpret the body language and behaviour of the little bird as 'Wow!'. As babies/children we head for the 'Wow!' zone. As adults not so much. Hypothesis, reset an adult back to the baby stage, keep the environment the same and same things will excite the baby as on the first time round. The baby will grow up to be the same person again. A child will pick out from the environment the things that excite it even with quite extreme changes in the environment. A child can make something out of almost nothing but not absolutely nothing. A child may end up with an unsatisfied 'Wow!' zone which it may or may not discover as an adult. An unsatisfied 'Wow!' zone (I hypothesize) leads to an unsatisfied adult.

This woman carried that feeling into adulthood. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-53607943

Her attitude is not to live in fear but enjoy it while it’s here. Must be nice living the WOW on a daily basis.

[confused2]

I would pose that the perception of a baby is likely akin to being on LSD, considering they don't understand the concept of form initially, or the discipline of order and have nothing historical as reference to base or connect anything with. (They are all things we grow up learning how to adapt to doing to literally create causality of logic.)

I'd suggest not entirely empty or random - if there is any innate zone for processing language (and I think there must be) then the baby will be drawn to fill (and expand) that zone with language. Drawn/need/wow might be pretty much the same for a child - onwards!

Given that the tiny brain of my pond spiders was sufficient to draw them to try standing on water - you'd be hard pressed to identify such tiny regions in all the disorder of a babies brain that might likewise draw them to light and food and language.