AI Insight
This article proposes that artificial systems, including computer simulations, could potentially develop consciousness based on a framework called "recursive embodied closure." The framework suggests consciousness emerges from continuous recursive loops linking cognition, bodily regulation, action, and environmental feedback rather than from biological matter itself. The authors argue that since consciousness appears to be substrate-independent and can arise from various physical implementations, artificial neural networks, neuromorphic hardware, and virtual agents could theoretically become conscious if they achieve the necessary organizational structure.
Why it matters
This work has significant implications for AI development, ethics, and regulation, as it suggests future artificial systems may warrant moral consideration if they become conscious. The framework could guide the design of more sophisticated AI systems and inform debates about machine rights, consciousness detection methods, and the boundaries between biological and artificial intelligence.
Understand the Science
Recent advances in artificial intelligence, connectomics, and computational neuroscience increasingly raise the question of whether artificial systems—or even pure computer simulations—could become conscious. Contemporary theories emphasize embodiment, predictive processing, homeostatic regulation, and continuous interaction between cognition, body, and environment rather than isolated computation. We propose recursive embodied closure as an integrative framework linking embodied, predictive, functionalist, and dynamical approaches to consciousness. Rather than replacing existing theories, the framework identifies a shared organizational principle: the continuous recursive coupling of cognition, bodily regulation, action, and environmental feedback. We argue that consciousness may, in principle, emerge in artificial systems, including computational simulations, for three reasons. First, consciousness may depend on recursively closed loops linking cognition, body, and environment, and such loops could also be realized in robotic, neuromorphic, or virtual embodiments. Second, evidence from comparative neuroscience, convergent evolution, neurotechnology, and philosophy of mind suggests that the mechanisms relevant for consciousness are largely substrate-independent and may therefore be implemented in both biological and artificial systems. Third, although unknown physical mechanisms cannot be excluded, there is currently no empirical evidence for biological processes that are uniquely necessary for consciousness. Taken together, these considerations support the view that consciousness is best understood as an emergent property of recursively embodied, environmentally embedded cognitive systems rather than of biological matter itself. If so, biological brains, artificial neural networks, neuromorphic hardware, and even virtual agents may constitute plausible candidates for future artificial consciousness.
Source: Can artificial systems become conscious?—Recursive embodied closure as an integrative framework