Neuroscience of animal consciousness: still agnostic after all
Yoram Gutfreund
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1456403
IF: 3.8
2024-10-09
Frontiers in Psychology
Abstract:The question of animal consciousness, also known as the distribution question (Niikawa, 2020), is the question of which animal species share with us humans the enigmatic capability for conscious awareness. This is a philosophical question (Nagel, 1980) that stems from the "other minds problem" (Harnad, 2016). The implications of this question may influence ethical considerations and policy-making in human-animal interactions (Yeates, 2022) as well as challenges in diagnosing human consciousness in cases like lockedin syndrome (Bayne et al., 2024), and questions about machine consciousness (Schneider, 2020). Despite its importance and long-history of research, the distribution question is still highly debated among biologists and philosophers. The main problem is that consciousness in other animals cannot be directly observed, only inferred. Determining whether it is possible to scientifically infer consciousness in nonhuman animals, and how, is not trivial, with strong philosophical and scientific reasons to support an agnostic stance, implying that the question is unresolvable through scientific methods (Dawkins, 2017;Gutfreund, 2017;2018;Hampton, 2021;Roige, 2023) . However, objections to the agnostic stance are also common (Birch et al., 2022), and a recent consortium of animal scientists and philosophers endorsed the "New-York declaration on animal consciousness" (Andrews et al., 2024) which asserts, contrary to the agnostic stance, robust scientific evidence supporting the attribution of conscious experiences to other mammals and birds. The declaration also suggests a plausible likelihood of conscious experience across all vertebrates, including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, as well as in many invertebrates, such as cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects.In this opinion paper, I critically assess the scientific claims for conscious experience in non-human animals, by reviewing two seminal studies published in leading journals (Nieder et al., 2020;Ben-Haim et al., 2021). These studies propose evidence of consciousness through observed neural activity and behavioral responses in non-human animals. The first, published in Science, argues for sensory consciousness in crows based on neural activity reflecting internal decisions. The second delineates perceptual awareness in rhesus monkeys, by exposing behavioral responses that are akin to subliminal versus conscious perceptions in humans. These studies exemplify the primary means for inferring animal consciousness: (1) identifying neural structures and activities akin to human neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) (Seth et al., 2005), and (2) recognizing behaviors in animals that resemble conscious behaviors in humans (Zlomuzica & Dere, 2022). I review the approaches and arguments presented in both studies and conclude that, while they provide novel, solid and general insights on animal cognition, the studies fall short of distinguishing cognitive abilities accompanied by conscious awareness from those that are not. Consequently, I argue that consciousness in non-human animals remains a subject of belief, beyond the reach of scientific validation.A neural correlate of sensory consciousness in a corvid bird. Nieder et al., Science; 2020.Nieder and colleagues define sensory consciousness as "the ability to have subjective experience that can be explicitly accessed and thus reported." They continue by convincingly showing that the activity of neurons in the nidopallium caudolaterale (NCL) predicts the crow's behavioral choices in a delayed detection task at near-threshold stimulus, where the crows occasionally fail to detect a present visual stimulus or mistakenly detect a stimulus when it is absent. They then argue that "a difference between the neuronal activities of one reported perceptual state versus the other for equal visual stimuli is considered to be a neural correlate of visual consciousness". Hence, they conclude that the neural activity in NCL is correlated with subjective experiences (consciousness) of the crow. This line of reasoning has several problems. The first is that the crows do not report their subjective experiences, rather they make a behavioral decision as whether to respond according to a stimulus in sight or no stimulus in sight. This is commonly called a perceptual decision. Indeed, detection tasks like the one used in this paper have been used in primates and other species to study the neural correlates of perceptual decisions (Costello et al., 2016;Kwon et al., 2016). The subjective experience of the crow is hidden from us (Dennett, 1995;Staddon, 2000;Dawkins, 2017;Gutfreund, 2017;Hampton, 2021). Hence, a perceptual decision without a felt subjective experience (David et al., 2011) is a possibility that is equally consistent with the data and cannot be disregarded. Second, their argument that brain activity that changes systematically with the subject's re -Abstract Truncated-
psychology, multidisciplinary