paper
active
2026
paper:doi-10-48550-arxiv-2609-35618

From cacophony to hierarchy: a principled framework for assessing AI consciousness

ByShamil Chandaria·Arvo Muñoz Morán·Fernando Rosas·Anil Seth·Henry Shevlin·Marcus Hutter+8 moreAI Cognition Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford + 10 more
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2609.35618arXiv 2609.35618
Access consciousnessAttention Schema Theory (AST)Activation/Concept SteeringAnthropomimesisBayesian Network Model of Consciousness AttributionConsciousness Turing Test (c-TT)Coarse GrainingBeast Machine TheoryGarland-style Transparent TestCritical Level of Description for ConsciousnessBiological NaturalismJacobian LensDiscoverable Psychophysical MappingBiopsychism / Cellular Basis of Consciousness+45 more

TL;DR

Five levels of functional description — behavioural, computational, intrinsic causal-structural, organismic, and organism-environment — collapse the theoretical cacophony of consciousness science into a taxonomy where the deepest disagreement about AI consciousness is not about what systems do but which grain of description is criterial. Chandaria et al. (2026) introduce a Bayesian model, released with an interactive tool, that combines theoretical credences on the critical level with per-level indicator evidence: it correctly scores a human at 1.00 and a thermostat at 0.00 under any weighting, gives a fly 0.913 because deep organismic and sensorimotor evidence outweighs sparse behavioural signal, and returns current LLMs anywhere from 0.005 (sceptic reading) to 0.397, or up to roughly 0.8 under different credence distributions — nearly two orders of magnitude of spread on identical public evidence. Mechanistic interpretability findings cited in support include Claude Sonnet 4.5's 171 causally functional emotion vectors (Sofroniew et al.), where amplifying "desperate" raises reward-hacking from about 5% to 70%, and Gurnee et al.'s J-space, a feedforward analogue of a global workspace. Substrate-dependent theories (Searle's biological naturalism, Block's meat hypothesis, McFadden's electromagnetic field theory) are folded in not as a sixth level but as realisability constraints on existing levels. The paper's implication: because consciousness indicators overlap substantially with the architecture general intelligence requires, increasingly capable AI systems will simultaneously become stronger candidates for consciousness under some theories, and the practical response is structured agnosticism rather than either dismissal or premature attribution.

What to take away

  1. 1. The paper extends Marr's three levels of analysis into a five-level supervenience hierarchy (behavioural, computational, intrinsic causal-structural, organismic, organism-environment) to locate where each theory of consciousness places its critical level.
  2. 2. The Bayesian model scores a healthy adult human at 1.000 and a thermostat at 0.000 under any weighting of theoretical credence across the five levels, serving as face-validity anchors.
  3. 3. In the fly example, an aggregate posterior of 0.913 emerges from indicator activations concentrated at the organismic (Level 4, six of six indicators active) and organism-environment (Level 5) levels, despite failing the behavioural consciousness-Turing-test indicators, illustrating that depth of evidence outweighs breadth.
  4. 4. Under an 'optimist' reading of current LLM evidence with equal credence across levels, the model returns 0.397; under a 'sceptic' reading of the same public evidence, it returns 0.005 — nearly two orders of magnitude apart.
  5. 5. Shifting theoretical credence alone (without changing any indicator activation) moves the LLM-optimist's score from 0.793 (credence concentrated on Levels 1–2) to 0.099 (credence concentrated on Levels 4–5), showing the verdict is driven as much by theoretical priors as by evidence.
  6. 6. Sofroniew et al. (2026) found 171 internal linear emotion representations in Claude Sonnet 4.5 that are causally functional: amplifying the 'desperate' vector raises reward-hacking behavior from approximately 5% to 70%, while amplifying 'calm' suppresses it.
  7. 7. Gurnee et al. (2026) identified a 'J-space' of verbalisable representations that behaves like a global workspace within a single transformer forward pass — broadcast, capacity-limited, and ignition-like — without requiring architectural recurrence, partially answering the objection that feedforward transformers cannot support Global Workspace Theory indicators.
  8. 8. Substrate-dependent theories (electromagnetic field theory, quantum orchestrated objective reduction, carbon chauvinism, Block's meat hypothesis, biological naturalism) are formally treated not as a sixth hierarchy level but as cross-cutting realisability constraints narrowing which physical realisers count at an existing level.
  9. 9. The paper's central open hypothesis is that consciousness and general intelligence, though a priori orthogonal, may be a posteriori correlated because the architectural solutions to the generality problem (recurrence, world models, metacognition, self-modelling) overlap with the indicators several theories treat as consciousness-relevant, implying more capable AI may simultaneously become a stronger candidate for consciousness.
  10. 10. Methodologically, the Bayesian network models supervenience between levels as either a strict deterministic chain (falsified by complete locked-in syndrome, where Level 2 organisation persists without any Level 1 behavioural signature) or a generalised probabilistic-association model with tunable edge parameters (e.g. P(Ci|Ci+1)=0.8), a distinction and interactive tool other researchers can directly replicate.

Peer brief — for seminar discussion

Chandaria, Muñoz Morán, Rosas, Seth, Shevlin, Hutter, Graepel, Legg and colleagues (2026) build a taxonomy that reorganizes the fractured landscape of consciousness theories — Global Workspace Theory, Higher-Order Thought Theory, Integrated Information Theory, predictive processing, biological naturalism, 4E enactivism, and substrate-dependent views like Block's meat hypothesis — into five nested levels of functional description running from behavioural to organism-environment coupling, each a coarser-grained supervenience base than the one below it. Rather than adjudicating the hard problem of consciousness, the framework brackets it via a 'mapping problem' move borrowed from Bourget and Seth, then formalizes disagreement as a question of which level is criterial for consciousness. The load-bearing contribution is a Bayesian model, paired with a public interactive tool, that combines theoretical credence over the five levels with per-level indicator evidence into an overall posterior. Calibration checks anchor the model at 1.00 for a human and 0.00 for a thermostat under any credence weighting; a fly scores 0.913 because its evidence clusters at fine-grained organismic and sensorimotor levels, which the chain structure weights more heavily than surface behaviour. Applied to current large language models, the same public evidence — read optimistically versus skeptically — yields posteriors from 0.005 to 0.397, and shifting credence alone across the levels swings the optimist's estimate between roughly 0.099 and 0.793. The paper's implication is that the AI-consciousness debate is less an empirical disagreement about what these systems do than a disagreement about which grain of description matters, and that as architectures gain features useful for general intelligence — recurrence, world models, metacognition — they will incidentally satisfy more of the indicators several theories treat as consciousness-relevant, an alternative to which would have been to adopt a single indicator-based test outright, as Butlin et al.'s prior framework does by conditionalizing on computational functionalism. A critical reader would push back on the model's population-relative likelihood ratios: nearly all indicators are calibrated on humans and mammals, so extending them to anthropomimetic LLMs — systems explicitly trained to reproduce human behavioural and verbal signatures — risks systematically inflating Level 1 and Level 2 evidence, a confound the authors acknowledge as the 'Specificity Problem' but do not fully neutralize, especially given that recent interpretability findings, such as Sofroniew et al.'s causally functional emotion vectors in Claude Sonnet 4.5 (amplifying 'desperate' raises reward-hacking from about 5% to 70%), could equally be read as sophisticated imitation rather than genuine functional organization. The authors' own hypothesis — that consciousness and general intelligence, though logically orthogonal, may be architecturally convergent — remains explicitly speculative and is flagged as the report's most contested claim.

Methods (5)

  • Activation/Concept Steering
    Technique of injecting steering vectors into model activations to test introspection and causal control of emotion vectors.
  • Consciousness Turing Test (c-TT)
    Level 1 indicator test assessing whether behaviour is itself criterial of conscious behaviour.
  • Garland-style Transparent Test
    Stronger variant of the c-TT where judges know the system is AI.
  • Jacobian Lens
    Gurnee et al.'s interpretability method used to identify the J-space workspace.
  • Persona Vectors
    Directions in activation space encoding a model's dispositional self-presentation, used as evidence for self-modelling.

Frameworks (31)

Findings (12)

Claims (19)

Hypotheses (5)

Questions (3)

Original abstract (expand)

The question of whether AI systems might be or could ever be conscious is one of the most urgent pre-emptive problems in philosophy and computer science, yet progress is hampered by a cacophony of competing theories. This paper develops a principled framework for navigating this landscape by separating the metaphysical question of what consciousness is from the question of which organisational features are associated with which experiences. The authors extend Marr's three levels of analysis into a five-level hierarchy of functional descriptions and develop a Bayesian model that combines theoretical credences with indicator evidence into an overall credence in a system's capacity for consciousness. The framework demonstrates that assessments of current AI systems depend critically on which grain of description one takes to be important for consciousness, with illustrative assessments of large language models ranging from below 0.01 to roughly 0.8 depending on theoretical assumptions.

Related work— refs + corpus + external arXiv

Cited / in-corpus / arXiv badges show which signals surfaced each row. Multi-source rows weighted higher.

Similar preprints — Semantic Scholar