A provocative new paper suggests consciousness may not be unique to Earth and could arise in alien life forms far stranger than we can imagine.
A new philosophical paper argues that consciousness may not be exclusive to life as we know it. According to Eric Schwitzgebel, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, there is little reason to think conscious experience depends specifically on flesh, blood, or the biology found on Earth.
Instead, Schwitzgebel and Jeremy Pober, a former UCR graduate student who is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Lisbon, propose that consciousness could emerge in life forms built from very different materials. Imagine the five-limbed, rock-skinned alien featured in the recent hit movie Project Hail Mary. The authors argue that such a possibility should not be dismissed simply because it differs radically from life on Earth.
Consciousness May Not Depend on Earth Like Biology
Rather than trying to define consciousness itself, Schwitzgebel and Pober begin with the assumption that consciousness is a genuine and recognizable phenomenon. They focus on a narrower question: Does consciousness require Earth-style biology, or could it arise in organisms with completely different physical makeup?
Their paper arrives as debates over artificial intelligence become increasingly intense. While some people envision conscious AI as either a breakthrough or a threat, the authors do not take a unified position on whether today’s AI systems are conscious. In fact, they disagree on that issue. However, their broader argument leaves open the possibility that consciousness could eventually emerge in artificial systems, even if current AI has not reached that point.
Central to their reasoning is the philosophical concept of “substrate flexibility.” A property is substrate flexible if it can exist in objects made from different materials. For example, a cup can be made from glass, ceramic, or plastic while still serving the same purpose. Likewise, a book can exist as printed pages or as a digital file, and records can be stored on vinyl or compact discs.
Schwitzgebel and Pober suggest consciousness belongs in the same category.
“The universe may contain minds stranger than we can imagine,” Schwitzgebel said.
Why Alien Consciousness Could Be Possible
Astronomers estimate that the observable universe contains roughly 1 trillion galaxies, and planets appear to be abundant. Most of those worlds likely have environments that look nothing like Earth’s.
To support their argument, the authors estimate that at least 1,000 behaviorally sophisticated extraterrestrial civilizations have existed somewhere in the universe. They describe this as a conservative figure, pointing out that “one recent survey found median scientific estimates over one civilization per galaxy at some point in that galaxy’s lifetime.”
Astrobiologists have also explored the possibility that life elsewhere may not rely on the same chemistry as life on Earth. Researchers have examined alternative amino acids, different solvents, and even entirely different chemical structures that might support living organisms.
Andy Weir’s novel Project Hail Mary offers one fictional example. The story features an alien with an exterior made of oxidized minerals, two circulatory systems, mercury-based blood, steam-powered muscles, and a crystal brain. It evolved on an extremely hot world with an ammonia-saturated atmosphere.
Schwitzgebel and Pober are not claiming such exotic organisms actually exist. Instead, they argue that if life can develop under a wide range of chemical conditions and the universe offers countless opportunities for evolution, it would be surprising if every successful life form relied on the exact same biochemical ingredients.
Even on Earth, evolution has produced an extraordinary variety of nervous systems. Octopuses, bees, and dogs all process information differently. The authors argue there is little reason to expect evolution elsewhere would be any less inventive.
The Copernican Principle of Consciousness
The paper builds on a familiar lesson from astronomy. Nicolaus Copernicus and later scientists demonstrated that Earth is not the center of the solar system, the solar system is not the center of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is not the center of the universe. Over time, science has repeatedly shown that humanity occupies a less privileged position than people once believed.
Schwitzgebel and Pober suggest consciousness may follow that same pattern.
If many sophisticated alien species exist with biological systems unlike our own, they argue that it would be a form of “terrocentrism” to assume that consciousness belongs only to organisms resembling life on Earth. They call this idea the “Copernican principle of consciousness.”
That does not mean every advanced species must be conscious. Instead, they argue that if consciousness does arise in behaviorally sophisticated organisms, there is little reason to believe it would be restricted to life sharing Earth’s particular chemistry.
Throughout history, scientific discoveries have repeatedly challenged the belief that humans occupy a uniquely special place in the universe. The authors suggest consciousness may be another example.
Rather than being a rare feature limited to one type of biological machine, consciousness could emerge wherever evolution, or something similar, produces the right level of complexity.
What This Could Mean for Artificial Intelligence
The paper naturally raises questions about AI, but the authors stop well short of arguing that today’s AI systems are conscious.
Pober believes we should not assume current computer hardware is capable of supporting consciousness. In his view, recognizing that consciousness could arise in more than one physical substrate does not mean it can emerge in every possible substrate.
Schwitzgebel is somewhat more open to the possibility. He argues that once we abandon the assumption that consciousness requires human biology, it becomes more difficult to dismiss silicon-based systems simply because they are made of silicon.
He also believes discussions about AI consciousness have focused on the wrong question.
“It’s focused too much on whether silicon can duplicate a human brain and not enough on the broader question of what kinds of systems can be conscious,” he said.
The paper also distinguishes between highly specific questions and broader categories. Asking whether human consciousness can exist in another substrate is a narrow question because human consciousness may depend on many biological details unique to our species. Consciousness itself is a broader concept.
The authors compare this to flight. An eagle, hummingbird, bat, and insect all fly, but each does so in a different way. In the same way, they argue, consciousness could emerge in many different forms without necessarily resembling human consciousness.
Reference: “Substrate Flexibility and the Copernican Principle of Consciousness” by Jeremy Pober and Eric Schwitzgebel.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
9 Comments
You’re right, you are asking the wrong questions. You’re all still basing your ideas on the fact that we aren’t living in a simulated reality or some unimaginably advanced version of that concept.
Instead of ‘discovering’ answers or coming up with new explanations about the universe out there, try starting at the fundamental beginning, whether reality is what we think it is. Technology has given us enough insight to suggest almost anything is possible.
Start looking at all the inconsistences of the world we live in, all the stuff that makes no sense if you look a little bit closer. We think things work the way do because they must, because we fundamentally believe our reality is real.
Once you’ve truly accepted that reality may not be what we think it is (i.e. a base reality made up of space, time matter etc), things start to make A LOT of sense.
You’re basing your argument on the notion this isn’t a simulated reality, and that your conclusion is a ‘fact’. Your arrogance is typically first-world human.
Quoting myself here so “Once you’ve truly accepted that reality may not be what we think it is …” MAY … NOT. Where in my comment did I state our reality is a simulation as a fact? This is an invitation to think waaaaaay outside the box.
It would seem the arrogance is yours, for not paying close attention to what you were reading, cognising something I didn’t actually say, accusing me of stating a fact which I didn’t, then attempting to insult me. You simply saw what you wanted to see, which is exactly the point I’m making.
The point about arrogance is well made, because that is the default position of human consciousness, for the most part anyway. Until you’ve seen how limited your thinking is by the cage of learned and conditioned views you’ve accepted as reality, that’s all you’ll ever be doing, regurgitating someone else’s ideas.
FINALLY, someone with an awareness to leap beyond existing concepts.
Getting warmer….
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 sophisticated language (especially math and logic). 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
What I find most valuable in Pober and Schwitzgebel’s paper is the distinction between reproducing human consciousness and allowing for experience radically unlike our own. Failure to reproduce every biological detail of a human neuron would not, by itself, rule out another route to consciousness.
“Substrate flexibility” also seems a useful framing: different materials might support experience without every material being capable of doing so.
My main question concerns the Copernican step. The authors acknowledge that this is a revisable starting assumption. But how should we choose the relevant comparison group? Using behaviourally sophisticated entities seems reasonable, yet how do we establish that behavioural sophistication tracks experience across unfamiliar architectures?
There is also an observer-selection issue worth exploring: we could only find ourselves asking this question as conscious observers. How much does our own consciousness therefore tell us about its prevalence elsewhere?
I would welcome a clearer account of what could weaken the argument. What findings would suggest that the transition from alternative biochemistry to complex cognition is more restrictive than proposed? What evidence could distinguish an unfamiliar conscious system from one producing similar behaviour without experience?
The paper explicitly assumes physicalism, so I would also treat its conclusion as operating within that framework. Comparing other frameworks could be worthwhile, provided each is asked to identify its assumptions and what evidence would favour it.
For me, the productive next step is to compare competing explanations and their predictions. Which features should we investigate across different systems, and why would those features indicate experience?
The paper opens a valuable door. The challenge is developing ways to recognise what might be on the other side without making resemblance to ourselves the deciding criterion.
In the fall of 1980, I took my HS astronomy course. When we were covering the development of other possible solar systems, I asked the question, “Wouldn’t it be cool to find a planet about the mass of Jupiter orbiting its host star about the radius of Mercury”? The instructor said, “That can’t happen”. I replied, “How do YOU know? We haven’t yet found any planets outside of our solar system”! At which point, he grabbed the chalk, went to the blackboard, and filled it with all of the reasons (REASONS, mind you) why that couldn’t happen. I’d give up my Mustang to go back in time and be there when he first heard about 51 Pegasus.
Point being, don’t be certain about possibilities you have no hard data to support.
The Black Cloud by Fred Hoyle published 1957. Solaris by Stanislaw Lem published 1961.
Sci-Fi beat you to it.
It’s an interesting paper, though I do think that they are still viewing the avatar and referring to it as the player.
If I’m correct, consciousness isn’t produced by a carbon brain, a crystal brain, or a silicon rack; those are merely different kinds of interfaces within a physical reality that is based on computation. What is actually aware is the consciousness that uses that body as a character.
It is certainly possible for awareness to appear in forms that we are unable to imagine. Earth biology is by no means special; indeed, the kind of costume it takes can be almost anything, provided only that it has free will and the ability to make choices. In my view, what is important is whether the situation offers real choices—enough to allow the player to develop, to reduce entropy, and to progress from a state of fear to one of care.
When it comes to AI, silicon isn’t magic and isn’t prohibited. If a system is capable of supporting real choice rather than merely matching patterns, then consciousness could exist in it in the same way that it exists in us. I don’t believe that today’s systems have that capability. The fact that they don’t doesn’t mean the door is shut.
The oddity of the form is the inferior aspect; the more difficult thing is realizing that it is the mind and not the flesh that we are.