Sedona, AZ — There could be several researchers and philosophers studying obesity with efforts of varying relevance. However, if the solution to obesity were to be found, work has to get to the point of identifying a target, say glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1], towards developing its receptor agonist or an effect of matching usefulness. While the efforts to get to that point [of progress] may have taken years and several unconnected explorations, the solution, as the main goal, means that a target, closest to solving the problem, must be isolated.
What would be the target to answer the question of consciousness, to benefit animal welfare? Around a year ago [April 19, 2024], there was The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, stating that, “Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged. First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds. Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects). Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.”
The declaration was referenced a bit, in some articles, but it ultimately led nowhere. It neither benefited the science of consciousness nor did it do anything to improve animal welfare, generally. There was lots of observed evidence about [behavioral] parallels of consciousness in several animals to humans. There were definitions and explanations. Still, if the declaration was not done, nothing would feel missing.
If consciousness were about observations of similarities to humans, but AI has language and robots have locomotion, why should AI and robots not be declared somewhat conscious? The argument could be that other things might be involved besides those parallels. If AI changes the measure, then maybe the measure [of observation] was inaccurate. Because the question should be about the mechanism that resulted in the behavior.
There might also be a problem with mechanism, because some people have said that since objects have atoms and subatomic particles like organisms, then objects can be somewhat conscious or have a kind of mind, in what is referred to as panpsychism.
Labels, philosophy, literature, analogies, and so forth may apply to complicate consciousness, but in neuroscience, where the nervous system is studied, what is the closest target or evidence to how consciousness works? If this is identified, how are the components, features, and interactions similar to those of animals? Why do the components produce consciousness in organisms, but even with similarities at the atomic and subatomic level, they do not produce consciousness in objects to nullify panypsychism?
All functions that the brain is said to do involve neurons with their electrical and chemical signals. Mind and consciousness are only produced in organisms—not objects—because organisms have cells; objects do not have cells, even though, as matter, they have atoms and subatomic particles.
So far, with all the evidence in neuroscience, there is no function that does not involve the electrical and chemical signals of nerve cells. There are several other cells in the brain, as well as several other non-cellular components. Nerve cells [and their signals] have been the most relevant to functions.
So, why is there no neuron [and signals] theory of consciousness? Or, just signals theory of consciousness? Why would there be a declaration on animal consciousness that does not at least postulate this, describing how several mechanistic similarities exist between humans and other model organisms, included in the animal declaration examples?
Consciousness cannot simply be subjective experience because if the mechanism of neurons [and signals] for the result of subjective experience cannot be at least theorized, then the intention for change in society, with animal consciousness may falter.
There are so many animal cruelty situations. There are several aspects of animal welfare. To develop a science of consciousness for animal welfare in a way that the information for change can percolate into public instruction for caution, would mean to align mechanisms, explaining [afresh] how [say] pain works in humans or temperature, with the [electrical and chemical] signals, as well as how it does for animals, with ways to mitigate extremes for animals.
If the mixed messages is that there is no consensus on the definition of consciousness and no one knows how the brain works but then animals are conscious in a declaration because they have similarities to humans, it not only seems unserious, it seems counterproductive.
Declaring that AI is not sentient with the same mode of operation already discredits the premise. AI has language, but it does not have emotions and feelings. But it has language as a form of memory. Humans sometimes use language consciously, without any feeling or emotional fraction. In the total consciousness in those moments, language has a fraction, so if AI has dynamic language, its sentience cannot be assumed to be zero, at least for those that want to be objective about the problem and not fit into obstructive dogma.
The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness was ill-advised, a major error, scientifically unsound, useless to the cause of animal welfare, and a research disrepute.
There is a recent report [March 27, 2025] on WKRN News 2, Animal rescue takes in a dozen puppies reportedly dumped in Dickson County woods, stating that, “Twelve puppies are recovering after a woman found them in the woods. Dickson County authorities are investigating the case and believe the animals were dumped off Woods Valley Road in Charlotte. Redferrin said the puppies appear to be about eight weeks old and she’s not sure of the breed. They’ve all been to the vet and have a myriad of problems. As of publication, eight of the twelve puppies have found foster families.”
This is an advertisement
1 Comment
It’s becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman’s Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990’s and 2000’s. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I’ve encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there’s lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar’s lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman’s roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow