Proposed behavioral markers provide a novel approach to accurately understanding both animals and humans.
A team of researchers has introduced a new approach to deepen our understanding of animal consciousness—one that may provide fresh insights into the similarities and differences among living organisms.
Their essay, published in Science, presents a “marker method” for assessing animal consciousness. This approach involves identifying behavioral and anatomical features linked to conscious processing in humans and examining whether similar traits exist in nonhuman species. The authors suggest that advancing the science of animal consciousness could help address fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness itself, ultimately enhancing our understanding of the human mind.
“When humans and other animals perform similar behaviors, and when the best explanation for these behaviors in humans involves conscious experience, then that could be considered evidence…of conscious experience in other animals, too,” write Kristin Andrews, a philosophy professor at York University, Jonathan Birch, a philosophy professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Jeff Sebo, a professor in New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies, in the Science essay “Evaluating Animal Consciousness.”
Scientific Support for Animal Consciousness
The publication comes nearly a year after the “New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” which demonstrated the scientific backing for consciousness among all vertebrates and many invertebrates, among other species. The declaration, organized by Andrews, Birch, and Sebo, has now been signed by more than 500 scientists and other researchers around the globe.
Philosophers, including Jeremy Bentham, and scientists, notably Charles Darwin, have considered questions linked to animal consciousness while John Stuart Mill, in the mid-19th century, acknowledged the challenge of broadly assessing consciousness. Well into the 21st century, a secure theory of consciousness remains elusive, and disagreement and uncertainty about the scope of consciousness in the animal kingdom remain ongoing.
Evaluating Dimensions of Consciousness
In their essay, Andrews, Birch, and Sebo describe an approach that includes “identifying a particular dimension of consciousness,” such as experiencing pain or seeing an object, and then “seeking evidence that such markers are present (or absent) in the target species.” They then call for new directions of inquiry, including research on dimensions of consciousness other than pain experience and non-invasive research methods.
However, they recognize the limitations of individual markers to serve as strong evidence by themselves. “The degree to which a particular marker can increase or decrease confidence in particular dimensions of animal consciousness depends on context,” they write. “For instance, linguistic behavior is a marker of specific kinds of conscious thought and emotion in humans. But as demonstrated by large language models that simulate human conversation, linguistic behavior alone is not strong evidence of consciousness in nonhuman systems.”
Despite these challenges, the authors emphasize the importance of continued exploration. “The idea that there is a ‘realistic possibility’ of consciousness in all vertebrates and many invertebrates may eventually be replaced by more confident language,” they conclude. “But for as long as the evidence remains limited and mixed, it is important to keep an open mind and strive to learn more.”
Reference: “Evaluating animal consciousness” by Kristin Andrews, Jonathan Birch and Jeff Sebo, 20 February 2025, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adp4990
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
7 Comments
Well of course they do. What’s the point in being alive if you’re not conscious about it?
Where’s the news?! The headline gives us the impression that we’re reading a news item – specifically, “new clues” revealed by scientists regarding animal consciousness! But the only news is that there is none. Though there is an essay out there that recommends continued research using anthropomorphic assumptions as relevant markers. At the very least, this “news” item should inform us of how the essay’a authors came to the conclusion that the suggested markers would be relevant to consciousness.
Open minded equates to wonder. Science, so often, sees wonder as child like, and suggests we follow accepted dogma. To me, this equates to a lack of curiosity, and a moratorium on free thought. Good luck to these scientists, they are attempting to see before they are told what to think. Every kid knows animals have feelings, perhaps less measurable than behaviors, but far more real. It only takes a spark to alight a new idea to a dying notion.
Exactly! Excellent observation(s).
Direct your question to a tree, weed, alga, slime mold, or amoeba.
Ahh worm. Let’s see… – There is only one animal on the earth, a rather long segmented worm we call DNA. It has an RNA wrap and a 30,000 Gene necklace – that makes Giraffes, spiders, slime-mold, grass, trees of every sort, the gasses of the atmosphere and occasional rainbows in the sky.
All the animals have eyes and brains constantly sampling the environment to support a perfectly fanciful mental portrait of the outside world so the animal doesn’t stub it’s toe and smack into a tree, which they regularly do anyway.
The perfectly fanciful part is the key here – none of you see the world outside your mind’s perfectly fanciful picture of it. Every bit of it is completely different than certainly most of you have been supposing.
Further: While you’ve been thinking you are important, the worm simply wants new iterations, of every sort in case the asteroid comes back.