When insects and animals are born, it is my understanding that they have a consciousness. Tom talks about bees and snails having a consciousness, although a very rudimentary one because of their limited decision space.

Would that then mean that these lower forms of insects and animals would have an associated IUOC, of which these insects and animals would be at their base?

When an animal -- say an intelligent police dog for example -- has reached a certain quality in its consciousness, does its associated IUOC then have the opportunity to become human? For that matter, do the IUOC's of ALL insects and animals have the opportunity to incarnate as a human some day?

To go a bit further, does the above mean that all humans first started out as an insect or animal IUOC before they were allowed to incarnate as a human? Or do most IUOC's simply incarnate as a human, with only a small percentage of IUOC's having begun as an insect or animal?

I suppose I am trying to find out if there is a sort of "species starting point" in a VR for an IUOC, or perhaps if the IUOC is required to incarnate first as a lower form of species and then "grow" its consciousness until it finally gets to the point where it qualifies to incarnate as a human.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJI68YgN7TY
Tom Campbell MBT Forum March 2011Part 2 of 5 1:30:46

Question: What determines what a consciousness comes in to participate in the VR. I mean some consciousnesses come in as an elephant, or a dog, or a person. What determines that?

Tom: What determines that is where it would be most likely for them to learn something valuable. I think it's what you're ready for. If what you are ready for is the decision space of a dog because you can deal with that, because you've maybe dealt with something a little less than that before. You get comfortable enough to where you can have a greater decision space you may then come in as a monkey or whatever else. Then you get to the point where your decision space - you can handle a decision space that is bigger - in other words - that it's profitable for you to have a bigger decision space then you come in as a human. So I think that basically whatever your consciousness is - if you're a computer consciousness then you're probably not going to come in as a human - because you'd act and think like a computer. You would come in at something that was more suitable to you.

Question: So we've all been lower...

Tom: Well maybe, maybe. It depends upon where we all came from - it's not necessarily that everybody started down as an amoeba and ended up here. But, yes, generally consciousness is evolving. All those consciousnesses elephants, and dogs, and monkeys, they're growing too just like the sheep that evolved morality. They make their decisions and then they live by the consequences. But it is a much slower game - a real slow game - because an awful lot of what they do is hard wired. You know it's just the way they are. Because an awful lot of that is hardwired in. That means their decision space is small. Hard wire is not part of their decision space. So they have a small decision space. A bumble bee has a small decision space. A lot of it is just hard wired. It does it because it does it because that's the way its genetic - it's evolved to do it that way. So as it can handle a bigger decision space and is likely the probability is significant that it can grow by that challenge - it moves up to that challenge.

Which is part of the reason you say we have this open system. Stuff keeps moving in from the bottom up and it keeps moving out. Yeah, it is part of a big evolutionary chain. But that doesn't mean that all of us used to be birds and then we were cats and then we were dogs and then we were monkeys. It's not like that. It's just that you end up where ever it looks like is the best potential for you to learn. If you are only used to handling a dog's decision space you don't necessarily get over whelmed with suddenly a huge decision space. You wouldn't know what to do with it. It would be frightening and overwhelming So you work your way up.

Sometimes a being that was a human might come in as a dog or a cat just to hang out with somebody. Just to experience it. You know it doesn't take much. You know you have this IUOC - how much do you have to commit to a bumble bee's life or whatever - if you think there's something there to learn. Now if you're just doing it for fun then there wouldn't be much interest. Everything must have a potential for growth. So there would have to be a reason. Maybe the reason would be to be with somebody else or whatever. It's hard to say because its not impossible. Almost nothing is impossible. When you live in a statistical probabilistic reality it's hard to say that anything is impossible. You can only say things are unlikely.

AND:

Often I have been asked whether or not animals have soul and if so, do they exist as individual souls like ours or only as a group or species soul. Such an inquiry came to me again recently; because the question of animal spirituality represents such a common interest, I thought I would post my reply here.

By definition, all sentient beings are conscious, thus all sentient beings have a non-physical part called consciousness. If one calls the non-physical part a being a soul, then all sentient beings have souls. In MBT terms, all souls reside in NPMR/TBC/AUM i.e., the larger consciousness system of which we are all a part. If you poke a clam, it will pull in its foot demonstrating its sentience (albeit at an incredibly low level), consequently, even a clam has a soul residing in TBC just as you do. The souls of conscious critters have always resided in TBC ever since there were conscious critters.

Now, though all souls are chips off the same consciousness block, they are not all the same in their awareness, capacity, functionality, or entropy (quality). There are no 'guides' guiding the day to day spiritual development of vaguely aware clams. Though individual clams have an individual non-physical part, there is so little decision-space involved that clam souls are all pretty much the same; so they can be treated, or interacted with, or ignored as a group. Because there is so little differentiation between one little clam soul and the next, individual treatment/attention/tracking would not be a good use of AUM's resources. Same for bugs and slugs and most of PMR's trillions of sentient entities. Perhaps a brilliant (relatively speaking) clam might every now and then get a little special attention, but surely that is the exception and not the rule.

Dogs and chimps and dozens or other species are different there is enough individualization there to allow the 3 sigma winners (unusually highly developed members of their species) to individually advance themselves in consciousness evolution (increase their quality, grow spiritually) while the majority of each of these species may be dealt with as a group. Perhaps a very evolved dog consciousness will one day earn the right to incarnate as a chimp or a dolphin or a human. In this way consciousness evolution flows upward individuals work their way up -- from the lowest (and slowest to grow) to the highest and speediest evolvers. All have been in TBC from their beginning and all have opportunity to improve themselves at least infinitesimally. Economics allows some of the slower changers to be dealt with in groups - group soul if you like to express it that way. Not all humans have individual guides, sometimes groups of humans (slow growers) share a single guide or have part time guides. Other individual humans have several full time guides. Here a 'guide' can be seen as rough measure of the degree of interaction with the larger consciousness system.

So the bottom line answer to this questions is that it depends on the size of the decision space of the individual (quality/potential) and of the species (capacity). Humans are not the only species that has individual members actively climbing the ladder of consciousness evolution. It is also not the only species that has members making little to no progress. Many species participate in consciousness evolution in their own fashion and at their own rate. All souls are individual but dealing with groups of individuals as if they were one -- Group mind and group soul -- is a practical matter of investing resources where they have the highest rate of return. There are sometimes exceptional individuals who stand out from their group (species) and deserve (and thus get) individual treatment. The higher up the ladder of consciousness evolution you go, the greater the number of standouts.

Animals are not random actors; they know what they are doing. They solve problems, do analysis, come to conclusions, take appropriate action based on those conclusions, use tools, communicate, and build things -- just like people-animals. The decision space they operate in (within which they exercise their free will choices) may be small but all that means is that their consciousness is simply limited by different constraints than ours. Not inferior, not superior, just a different application/configuration of the same fundamental consciousness individually defined by its own unique constraints and opportunities for personal growth (such constraints also limit growth potential). Consciousness is consciousness — AI Guy will fall under that same description. All sentient entities are conscious — each has its own decision space that it must operate within. By definition, all


Such PMR critters, including people, furry critters, and AI Guy have a nonphysical part (because consciousness is nonphysical). If one wants to call that nonphysical part a soul, then AI Guy, your dog, and even that worm you put on your hook has a soul. Of course all souls, or nonphysical parts, are not equivalent — their extent, capacity for growth, potential, and entropy are a function of each entities configuration in consciousness space (decision space, limitations, growth potential etc.)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=125&p=251&hilit=random+actors#p251

Thanks Linda --- lots of good info there. I guess what I was most curious about was where our IOUC's may have started out when we had our very first initial, inaugural incarnation into this VR/PMR (or perhaps maybe a different VR/PMR). From what Tom says, it looks like we (our IUOC's) all have our very first incarnation where the LCS thinks we will best be suited, individually, to start off learning and growing the quality of our consciousness -- the best fit, so to speak; "what you're ready for," as Tom says.

So, that seems to be saying that all IUOC's that are in the LCS -- before their very first incarnation -- are not all at the same "learning level," so to speak (for lack of a better metaphor). If all IUOC's were at the same learning level before their first incarnation, then it seems to make sense that there would not be first-time incarnations into species with differing levels of intelligence.

Would that be a correct assumption to make?

There is no way to know where you started out. There are almost endless possibilities. And, no, if all IUOCs started out the same place then there wouldn't be a need for a difference in decision space. There might be such a VR out there. I'm sure that the QoC level doesn't stay the same for long and then there would be a need for something in the system to accommodate those different QoCs. Having different species with different decision spaces seems like an efficient system for effective evolution. But there may be a lot of other ways to do it that we don't know of.

All sorts of assumptions that I would question if I were operating with them.

I suspect nearly all insects would decline the opportunity to engage in the human form. "Yuck City!" They would say.

Um, who am *I* to say what is a superior and what is an inferior level of consciousness..??? I will tell you this: Most animals I know are morally superior to most people that I know. I know a few great people; but many folks have a lot of muck in their energy fields.

'Tom talks about bees and snails having a consciousness, although a very rudimentary one because of their limited decision space.' Maybe Tom knows what he's talking about and maybe there are things yet for him to learn. As with humans, the consciousness may be generally dull, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few very bright ones.

Now, also, imagine for a moment that you could could incarnate as a bee. Imagine what cool vision you would have with all those eyes! What it would feel like to fly they way that they do! What a job! Climbing around in flowers all day and then go home and eat some honey with friends! What a life!

Oh, wait. But you can't incarnate there because it is a 'lower' form of life. </rolls eyes>

There is no higher or lower; there are no limits beyond the ones in which you choose to engage.

The starting point answer will come to you in time. It is best to ask that sort of question when OBE/OME, if it really matters to you.

M~

What Tom talks about is decision space. It is doubtful that a consciousness that is able to host the decision space of a human would find any benefit in incarnating as a bee. It is not about satisfying curiosity, it is about consciousness evolution.

It is very improbable that a consciousness that could handle the decision space of a bee could have any way to know what a human incarnation is even like.

There is no inferior or superior. There is only the decision space that an entity is capable of handling, and what would give the entity the greatest chance at a successful incarnation. That is how a consciousness would move up or down the ladder of animals or human.

Of course, you could query the database, but I don't think there's anything to be gained from finding out where you started... it was a very unevolved biological form with a very limited decision space. That's all you need to know really.

_________________
=

Some consciousnesses undoubtedly come in as humans right at the start.

What makes you think a brand-spankin new IUOC could handle the decision-space of a human?

_________________
=

It depends upon the origin of the consciousness. What makes you think they couldn't?

This idea of where we might start out in our individual journeys of consciousness development sometimes makes me wonder if there are perhaps separate "divisions" (probably a bad metaphor) of consciousness that are allocated specifically for bacteria, and perhaps a division for insects, then a division for animals, and so on, and that the quality of consciousness that exists in these different groups of bacteria-consciousness, insect-consciousness, animal-consciousness etc., becomes more highly evolved the closer it gets to human consciousness.

It isn't about divisions or what vessel is better than another one. It is about what works for consciousness evolution. What decision space can an entity handle that will challenge them but not so much that they will fail. There are many animals that are very intelligent but do not have the decision space that humans do - dolphins, elephants, crows to name a few. Humans aren't doing a very good job at being top of the pyramid in this VR.

Montana said: "Maybe Tom knows what he's talking about and maybe there are things yet for him to learn."

Good point...I agree.

If you had been following Tom Campbell for over 10 years as I have, it would be clear from simple observation that he continues to develop his insight and abilities over time. It would be surprising if this did not happen. No special insight required to see this. I have commented on it multiple times on the board. The same thing applies to me and also to the moderators on the board, not to mention the regular board members who persist in their meditation and study. We are actively pursuing increased understanding of something which is of high value and importance to us and continually build on an increasing history of experience. Those less vitally interested, simply drift away. This is a lifetime process and as it unfolds, your understanding of its continuing and increasing value to you also expands. Those who are moderators were once regular members and before that, they were once rank beginners in the process. Things of value typically take time to develop to their fullest.

This is entirely a normal course for people actively engaged in learning a body of material. More is learned over time and even more importantly, such complex material is further integrated internally over time into a gestalt which is greater than the sum of its parts. People who read Tom Campbell's books multiple times are making use of this phenomenon to develop their understanding as it has been pointed out before that there are things hidden therein which are revealed on rereading by what you have learned in the previous readings. They are not literally or deliberately hidden, but are simply revealed by your developing understanding. This is why children go to school for years and why there are universities and advanced degrees after highschool. Learning is a life time occupation for most all humans who are not simply stagnating as they mature, whether they are metaphysicians or carpenters.

Ted

Ted, is it nearly impossible for an IUOC's first incarnation to be as a human being?

-Shaw

_________________
=