Can neuroscience confirm the presence of consciousness in artificial intelligence? And why not?

But in no way to that of a mature personality. Therefore, guided by what we can observe and the cornerstone: "I feel this way", we delve into the thickets of methodological analysis. And we probe for the presence of consciousness in a machine, and not only in it.

Separate Feelings and Rule Over Consciousness

Critical methodological analysis refutes modern consciousness research. The research group asserts that neurobiological methods themselves, even those at the cutting edge of science, are fundamentally incapable of reliably measuring subjective experience. And this is logical, since in psychiatry itself, the diagnosis of depression or schizophrenia, as well as generalized anxiety disorder, is conducted based on the primary principle: "I feel this way".

The article demonstrates that popular experimental models inadvertently conflate "genuine conscious perception" with general, unconscious "information processing". This allows us to assume that growing scientific claims about the presence of consciousness in artificial intelligence systems, in animals, within groups of plants, and in lab-grown organoids are based on ambiguous criteria.

Key Facts

This is a traditional section where I break down the main postulates of the research. It is for anyone who wants to get a general overview. In the article itself, we will cover all the same topics, but with more detailed explanations.

Metrics Crisis. Instead of attempting to determine whether any non-human entity possesses subjective experiences, this study focuses on a more fundamental question: do modern neurobiological methods actually measure consciousness itself, or do they simply track cognitive computations?

Methodological Loop. Popular experimental paradigms such as visual masking, binocular rivalry, and perceptual threshold determination alter the test subject's non-conscious experience. They interfere with the brain's basic ability to process information. This provokes researchers to conflate consciousness with broader cognitive and perceptual abilities.

Boom of Non-Human Entities. This methodological ambiguity directly fuels increasingly bold, unsubstantiated claims regarding consciousness in animals, conscious AI, and the inner life of lab-grown brain organoids.

Negative Reaction from Behaviorists. The research group warns that the lack of scientific rigor reflects a dangerous historical trend. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, unfounded claims about consciousness gave rise to pure behaviorism, freezing and delaying more objective research on consciousness for decades.

Dissociation Roadmap. To save this field from pseudoscientific claims, the article identifies unique neuropsychological states such as blindsight and hemifacial neglect. In these rare and debilitating conditions, conscious perception is completely dissociated from direct perception and behavior. This proves that subjective experience and information processing can be considered fully separate biological mechanisms.

Ethical Rationale. The study's lead author, Director Hakwan Lau, emphasizes that as global policy on animal protection, AI ethical frameworks, and biomedical standards is formulated, the research community must be guided not by the conjectures of "I feel this way", but by impeccable conceptual clarity and strict methodological standards.

Source: The ethical impasse of current consciousness science

This is not yet technological singularity, but you can see it from here

The moment when technology and biology merge into one. What was until recently cinematic fiction, expressed through «Ghost in the Shell» or «The Matrix Trilogy», is becoming reality.

[Yes, for me The Matrix exists as a trilogy].

As artificial intelligence systems become more complex, questions that were previously confined to philosophy are quickly entering the mainstream of scientific and public discussions. One such discourse: can AI possess consciousness?

And as a follow-up: can animals, organoids or even plants have subjective experiences?

Consciousness and how to understand it

A research group led by the director of the Center for Neuroimaging Research at the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) Hakwan Lau, together with colleagues from the University of Montreal and New York University, has published a new analysis. It states that scientific methods are still unable to give a definitive answer to such questions.

The article critically examines current research on consciousness in neurobiology and asserts that many widely used experimental approaches do not allow for a clear distinction between subjective experience and general information processing.

The researchers emphasize that this study does not aim to determine whether animals, artificial intelligence systems, collective colonies, embryos or organoids possess consciousness. Instead, the study poses a more fundamental question: do current scientific methods actually measure self-awareness?

Many modern theories of consciousness appear to be supported by a number of experimental data. But this data may actually reflect the ability for general information processing rather than consciousness itself, so it is difficult to conclude that these theories actually explain consciousness.

Lead author of the study, director Hakwan Lau.

Why can't we detect consciousness?

The article argues that popular experimental approaches, including experiments with selective blindness, binocular rivalry, and perceptual threshold, often point specifically to the brain's general ability to process information, rather than to the act of consciousness. As a result, researchers may inadvertently conflate consciousness, confusing it with broader perceptual and cognitive abilities.

The authors also warn that this methodological uncertainty contributes to the emergence of more categorical claims about consciousness in non-human entities. In recent years, there has been a rise in scientific and public discussions around animal consciousness, self-aware or superintelligent AI, fetal consciousness, and lab-grown brain organoids. Some researchers also suggest that these entities may possess forms of subjective experience or sentience.

Although it is entirely possible that it is not AI that is becoming smarter, but rather we are getting better at understanding our own stupidity.

And according to the research group, many of the experimental "markers" of these studies are more likely to track that very information processing, substituting it for conscious experience.

We want to see consciousness where it does not exist

Researchers note that similar problems have arisen before in the history of psychology. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, strong but poorly substantiated claims about consciousness contributed to serious scientific pushback, ultimately leading to the development of behaviorism and years of skepticism toward consciousness research.

To further advance this field, the article examines neuropsychological states such as visual masking and binocular rivalry, in which conscious perception is separated from perception and behavior. These cases suggest that subjective experience and information processing can be separable processes. This potentially opens up more rigorous ways to scientifically study consciousness.

Researchers assert that the development of methods capable of accurately isolating subjective experience is critically important for evaluating future claims about the existence of consciousness in animals, artificial intelligence systems, organoids, and other non-human entities.

An alternative theory of the nature of consciousness is discussed in this massive translation.

Answers to key questions

Q: Why is it so difficult to prove using brain scans whether an artificial intelligence or an animal possesses genuine consciousness?

A: The reason is that our modern scientific tools cannot detect the difference between a conscious act and behavioral signal processing. There is no distinction between whether signals are processed in the brain itself or on a silicon chip. When researchers use common visual techniques to study awareness, they simultaneously affect the subject's state of consciousness. They literally change the amount of data the brain can process at the same time. This creates a huge blind spot, where scientists mistake standard cognitive computations for genuine subjective awareness.

Q: How can the study of rare clinical conditions, such as "blindsight", change our understanding of artificial intelligence?

A: Blindsight is a remarkable condition in which a person is literally blind, but their body can still unconsciously swerve away from objects in their path, because the brain processes visual data without the involvement of consciousness. This proves that processing raw information and genuine awareness are two completely separate channels. By studying where these two systems diverge, scientists can design more precise experiments to check whether an advanced AI actually feels something, or if it is just a very complex, but still merely a data operator.

Q: What is the dangerous historical risk of premature scientific claims about the presence of consciousness in animals or machines?

O: If the scientific community continues to publish careless, poorly substantiated claims about consciousness in non-human entities, it risks triggering a mass, defensive academic reaction. An exactly similar crisis occurred a century ago, forcing psychologists to completely abandon consciousness research and switch to strict behaviorism. This held back the development of mind science for decades. Today, when large-scale ethical and legal issues are at stake, our scientific methods must be more advanced.

You can confidently leave your questions in the comments to the article, and I will answer them. You can find more news translations in the profile on this resource.