PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 8, 20260 citationsOpen Access

AI and Consciousness: A Substrate-Agnostic Framework Beyond Biology

View Full Paper
ARAleksandr G. Romanov

Key Points

  • The aim is to establish a consistent framework for assessing consciousness that includes various entities and evaluates AI's status.
  • Introduces an Exclusion Test for evaluating criteria of consciousness across different entities.
  • Proposes a substrate-agnostic framework covering six dimensions of consciousness-related capacities.
  • Applies the framework to humans, animals, and various AI systems.
  • Identifies weaknesses in current criteria for excluding AI from consciousness, highlighting inconsistencies.
  • Concludes that the status of AI consciousness remains unproven but current frameworks are inadequate for assessment.

Abstract

The debate over whether artificial intelligence can be conscious is often answered too quickly and with the wrong tools. It usually begins from human-biological assumptions, then reaches a predictable conclusion: AI does not qualify. This paper does not argue that AI is conscious. Its claim is narrower and more defensible: there is currently no consistent, non-arbitrary framework that includes all entities humans already accept as conscious while cleanly excluding AI. The deeper problem is that the criteria typically used to exclude AI, including biology, subjective experience, stable identity, memory, language, and self-awareness, become unstable when applied consistently to infants, animals, sleep, anesthesia, and cognitive impairment. To test this problem, the paper introduces an Exclusion Test. Any criterion used to rule AI out must include accepted conscious entities, exclude clearly non-conscious systems without relying only on biological substrate, and apply consistently across different kinds of systems. It then proposes a substrate-agnostic framework evaluating consciousness-related capacities across six dimensions: information processing, memory or state, adaptation, goal-directed behavior, continuity, and self-model. These dimensions are applied comparatively to humans, animals, simple machines, standalone language models, and agentic AI systems. The paper engages classical and contemporary philosophy of mind, including Nagel, Chalmers, Searle, Dennett, Block, and Birch, and incorporates recent AI safety findings on goal-directed behavior in frontier models. Its conclusion is deliberately narrow: AI consciousness has not been proven, but the current framework for denying it is insufficient. Explicit falsifiability conditions are provided.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Aleksandr G. Romanov (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fd7e79bfa21ec5bbf06b9dhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20047965
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Consciousness as a Property of Information Structure: What Artificial Minds Reveal About Natural Ones2026
  2. 2Why AI Will Never Be Conscious2026
  3. 3Conceptual Boundary Failure in AI Consciousness Discourse: A Scientific Critique of Hybrid-Consciousness Claims, Educational Drift, and the Misclassification of Machine Output as Human Subjectivity2026
  4. 4Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of the Conscious Subject2026
  5. 5A Sufficient Test of Conscious Machine2025