Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Synthetic emotions and consciousness: exploring architectural boundaries

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An emotion-like controller can be built that avoids every architectural feature major theories tie to access consciousness.

desk verdict Useful audit template for consciousness-risk in affective AI, but the main existence result is largely built into the definitions and needs a sharper module-granularity criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01462 v3 pith:AYY7VGPA submitted 2025-05-01 cs.AI cs.CY

Hermann Borotschnig This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords syntheticemotionconsciousnessAIsafetyaffectivecomputingheuristiccontrolaccessseparationwitnessepisodicmemory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that synthetic emotion-like control does not force a designer to include the architectural features that major theories associate with access consciousness. It specifies a hierarchical, dual-source controller—one source from immediate needs, one from affectively tagged episodic memory—and shows that this controller can satisfy four risk-reduction constraints: no global broadcast, no metarepresentation, no autobiographical consolidation, and bounded learning. The construction is offered as a separation witness: a concrete existence proof that affect-like control can remain below the access-consciousness thresholds the paper adopts as a proxy. If the argument holds, emotionally expressive AI systems can be assessed by auditable architectural tests rather than by phenomenology alone, which is what makes the claim useful for safety and governance discussions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the separation witness: the controller S operating on the A1–A8 loop, paired with a memory module M and governed by the Safe Interface Contract (SIC). The SIC is the load-bearing mechanism for R1–R4 compliance: SIC-1 gives every episode exactly one external reader, preventing the memory from becoming a shared workspace; SIC-2 makes retrieval keys depend only on current observation content; SIC-3 forbids cross-episode summaries from reaching the controller; SIC-4 freezes deployment and isolates optimizers; and SIC-5 restricts memory reads to the retrieval step and writes to the storage step. The paper's argument is that any implementation honoring these interface constraints inherits compliance with R1–R4, and it supplies a concrete toy model as an explicit constructive instance.

What would settle it

A decisive falsification would be a concrete R1–R4-compliant system that nevertheless shows the signature a major access theory identifies with access consciousness—for example, content-general flexible reuse of an internal representation across heterogeneous subsystems, or decodable self-referential content in a module supposed to be R2-compliant. The paper's own implicit-audit probes could be run directly on the toy model: train classifiers to decode identity or trajectory information from the step-local situation embeddings, or measure cross-module mutual information between memory and controller; a positive result would show that R1–R4 compliance is not enough to keep access-enabling features out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that there exists a separation witness: a hardwired, standalone emotion-like controller implementing principles A1–A8—categorical abstraction, need appraisal, episodic affective retrieval, affective and policy integration, policy instantiation, execution, reappraisal, and episode storage—that also satisfies R1–R4, the engineering constraints distilled from prominent access-oriented consciousness theories. Under this proxy, affective control can be realized without a content-general workspace, without higher-order representations, without autobiographical consolidation, and without cross-module learning. The paper is explicit that satisfying R1–R4 is not a proof of non-consciousness; it is a conservative, audit-friendly region that plausibly removes several routes theories treat as enabling access consciousness. The witness is made precise by the Safe Interface Contract, which restricts memory access to a single reader, keeps retrieval keys step-local, forbids cross-episode summaries visible to the controller, isolates optimizers, and limits reads and writes to specific points in the control loop. The paper also answers two further questions: stable modifications such as offline memory reconciliation and mood-like temporal smoothing preserve compliance, and graded paths along self-modeling, broadcast, temporal binding, and learning axes trace increasing access risk.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim collapses if the four constraints R1–R4 do not actually track the architectural features that enable access consciousness, or if the paper's stated auxiliary assumption that adding access-enabling features weakly increases the probability of phenomenality is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Emotion-like behavior in an AI system does not, by itself, indicate access-enabling architecture: a system can be 'too simple to be conscious yet rich enough to be emotional' under the paper's proxy.
  • Designers seeking to reduce access-consciousness risk can apply the audit indicators in the paper's Table 2, including fan-out counts, self-reference traces, history shuffling, gradient isolation, and latent-space probes for implicit violations.
  • The conservative region is not fragile: offline memory reconciliation, mood-like temporal smoothing, and trait-like constant modulators preserve R1–R4 compliance, so useful enhancements do not break witness status.
  • Graded departures from the conservative region can be traced along four axes—self-modeling, integration/broadcast, temporal binding, and learning sophistication—giving engineers a vocabulary for how design changes drift toward access risk.
  • The methodology generalizes to other emotion theories: alternative architectural principles and alternative risk-reduction criteria can be plugged into the same auditable template, for example an R5 criterion targeting large-scale causal integration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the separation witness is accepted, the burden of proof shifts for claims about emotionally expressive AI: showing that a system is consciousness-relevant would require demonstrating that it implements one of the access-enabling features R1–R4 target, not merely that it behaves emotionally.
  • The same template could be used to sort emotion types: if higher-order social emotions such as guilt, shame, or pride turn out to lack a separation witness under R1–R4, those emotions would become sharper test cases for whether some affective states require access features.
  • The paper's implicit-violation analysis suggests a concrete interpretability agenda: train decoders to look for self-referential or trajectory content in the activations of nominally R2/R3-compliant modules; a positive result would not refute the witness but would show that compliance needs continuous auditing rather than architectural assumption.
  • A natural next test is to run the witness against non-access-oriented risk criteria, such as an integration-based measure; whether the stability results survive that additional constraint is not settled by the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether synthetic emotion-like control can be implemented while deliberately excluding architectural features that major theories associate with access-like consciousness. It proposes architectural principles A1–A8 for a hierarchical, dual-source controller (immediate needs plus episodic affective memory) and four risk-reduction constraints R1–R4 (no content-general workspace-like broadcast, no metarepresentation, no autobiographical consolidation, and bounded learning). It then addresses Q1 (does an A1–A8 implementation satisfying R1–R4 exist?), Q2 (are there stable modifications preserving compliance?), and Q3 (are there graded paths toward higher access risk?). The main construction is the controller in Fig. 1, whose compliance is argued through a Safe Interface Contract (SIC-1–SIC-5) in Section 4.1. The paper claims an affirmative answer to Q1 by construction, presents M1–M3 as stable modifications, and sketches gradual axes (self-modeling, broadcast, temporal depth, learning sophistication) plus audit indicators in Table 2.

Significance. If the construction were sound, the paper would make a useful methodological contribution: it translates a vague question about consciousness risk into explicit, auditable architectural constraints and gives a concrete reference implementation, thereby providing a template that other researchers could reuse or contest. The paper is commendably transparent about the status of its claims: R1–R4 are presented as a conservative proxy, the witness is explicitly an existence proof rather than a non-consciousness certificate, and the limitations of the proxy are acknowledged repeatedly. The inclusion of a Safe Interface Contract, a worked example deferred to the Supplementary Information, and reference code are strengths that make the claims checkable in principle. However, the central existence claim is currently not established because of a gap between the SIC constraints and the paper's own definition of R1, detailed below.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.1] The situation-category c_t produced in step 2 of Fig. 1 is read by three functionally distinct consumers: assessneeds (step 3), RetrieveM (step 6), and policytoaction (step 13). Under the paper's own R1 gloss in Section 1, c_t is an internally generated, content-general state (it carries open-ended semantic tokens such as 'threat approaching') that is written by one subsystem and flexibly repurposed by multiple heterogeneous consumers. The Safe Interface Contract (SIC-1, SIC-2, SIC-5) constrains only the memory module's read/write paths and does not audit the fan-out of c_t within the controller. Consequently, the claim that Q1 is answered affirmatively is not established under the paper's own definitions. The authors must either eliminate this multi-consumer fan-out (for example, by making c_t module-local and passing only narrow, typed derived signals to each consumer) or provide a principled granularity criterion that explains why c_t is not a workspace-like broadcast without trivializing R1 by declaring the entire controller a single module.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The concrete worked instance that completes the existence proof is deferred entirely to SI, Part I; since Q1 is an existence claim, please include at least a condensed specification in the main text (e.g., the exact key schema, the linear need-to-affect map, and the bounded k-NN aggregation) so the proof is self-contained.
  2. [Declarations] The reference implementation is cited only as a GitHub URL without a commit hash or version; please pin the repository to a specific commit and provide a minimal verification script so that the claimed hardwired witness can be checked.
  3. [Section 5] The statement that the concrete controller of Fig. 1 'tested against R1-R4 audits' makes the stance 'precise and falsifiable' is stronger than the evidence presented: the audits in Table 2 are sketched as design indicators, and no audit output from the reference implementation is reported. Please soften this wording or include the audit results.
  4. [Abstract] Please fix the spacing error in 'deliberatelyexcluding' in the abstract.
  5. [Table 2] The 'implicit tests' column, such as 'Train classifiers to decode self-referential content from activations,' is promising but not operationalized; please mark these as preliminary hypotheses rather than tested procedures.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Q1's affirmative answer is definitional: SIC-1 reduces R1 to a single-reader memory interface, and the witness is never checked against the paper's own workspace definition for the controller-internal c_t fan-out.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, Safe Interface Contract (SIC), SIC-1 and 'R1–R4 compatibility']
    "SIC-1 Single-reader access (memory cannot serve as a workspace). Any episode in M (including caches) has exactly one memory-external heterogeneous reader: S. This is a sufficient condition preventing M from functioning as a content-general shared workspace, and preventing the controller S from benefiting from indirect access to external systems using the same memory (no workspace, R1)."

    R1 as defined in Section 1 forbids any mechanism making internally generated, content-general representations flexibly reusable across heterogeneous subsystems. The Q1 proof substitutes SIC-1's memory-single-reader condition for R1, so 'no workspace, R1' is obtained by construction rather than by auditing the controller. In Fig. 1, c_t is generated by categorize (A1, step 2) and read by assessneeds (A2, step 3), RetrieveM (A3, step 6), and policytoaction (A5, step 13): an internally generated semantic token with multiple heterogeneous consumers, matching the paper's own workspace characterization. The witness is shielded from R1 by the SIC definition, making the affirmative answer to Q1 entailed by the construction rather than by an independent check of the constraint.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that Q1 is an existence proof and that R1-R4 are a proxy, and A1-A8 plus R1-R4 derive from external biological and theoretical sources rather than from the witness itself. Q2 and Q3 also have independent constructive content. However, the central Q1 claim reduces by construction to the Safe Interface Contract: SIC-1 declares a single memory-external reader sufficient for 'no workspace, R1' without ever testing the controller-internal situation-category c_t against the paper's own definition of a content-general broadcast. Under that definition, c_t is written by one subsystem and read by at least three heterogeneous consumers, so the R1 compliance claim is definitionally shielded rather than demonstrated. Citations to Borotschnig 2026 are only for the published version and supplementary code, not load-bearing for the argument. Score 6 reflects partial circularity of the central existence claim; the methodological template and audit indicators remain independently valuable.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the stipulated definitions of A1-A8 and R1-R4, the functionalist stance, and the assumption that R1-R4 meaningfully proxy access-consciousness risk. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters listed are illustrative degrees of freedom in the toy controller, not fitted values.

free parameters (4)
  • affect fusion weights alpha_n, alpha_m, alpha_a = unspecified
    Hand-chosen weights for combining need-based, memory-based, and affect-based policy hints in the toy model. No values are fitted to data, and the existence argument does not depend on specific choices.
  • softmax temperatures tau_1, tau_2 = unspecified
    Control exploration versus commitment in policy and action selection. They are illustrative design choices, not fitted parameters.
  • episodic retrieval weights w_j = unspecified, sum to 1
    Weights for aggregating retrieved episode affect and policy hints. The architecture only requires that such weights exist.
  • mood smoothing constant gamma = range [0.9, 0.99] in M2
    Introduced for the 'mood-like' temporal smoothing modification M2. The range is chosen by hand to give a slow leaky integrator.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Functionalism: roles and causal organization, not substrate, ground the analysis.
    Adopted in Section 1 under General Assumptions. The entire separation question presupposes that architecture and information flow are the relevant level of analysis.
  • domain assumption R1-R4 are a faithful operationalization of access-enabling features across GWT/GNW, HOT, and convergent frameworks.
    Distilled in Section 2.2. If this mapping is wrong, the witness loses relevance to consciousness risk. The paper labels the constraints a 'proxy' and a 'conservative region', acknowledging the interpretive step.
  • domain assumption Adding access-enabling features weakly increases the probability of phenomenality.
    Stated in the scope discussion of Section 1 and used to connect architectural constraints to risk. Without this assumption, R1-R4 have no clear safety interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper A1-A8 define a minimal sufficient core for 'emotion-like control'.
    Explicitly stipulative in Section 5: 'A1-A8 are themselves stipulative... any demarcation involves definitional choices.' The label assignment is not empirically validated.
  • domain assumption The Safe Interface Contract is enforceable in a real deployment, including frozen, hardwired, single-reader memory systems.
    Used in Section 4.1 to establish the existence of SIC-compliant implementations. The concrete worked instance is in the SI, and the paper acknowledges implicit violations can arise in learned components.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic emotions and consciousness: exploring architectural boundaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYY7VGPA

@misc{pith2026250501462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic emotions and consciousness: exploring architectural boundaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYY7VGPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01462}
}
read the original abstract

As artificial agents display increasingly sophisticated emotion-like behaviors, frameworks for assessing whether such systems risk instantiating consciousness remain limited. This contribution asks whether synthetic emotion-like control can be implemented while deliberately excluding architectural features that major theories associate with access-like consciousness. We propose architectural principles (A1-A8) for a hierarchical, dual-source implementation in which (i) immediate needs generate motivational signals and (ii) episodic memory provides affective guidance from similar past situations; the two sources converge to modulate action selection. To operationalize consciousness-related risk, we distill predictions from major theories into four engineering risk-reduction constraints: (R1) no content-general, workspace-like global broadcast, (R2) no metarepresentation, (R3) no autobiographical consolidation, and (R4) bounded learning. We address three questions: (Q1) Can emotion-like control satisfy R1-R4? We present a concrete architecture as an existence proof. (Q2) Can the architecture be extended without introducing access-enabling features? We identify stable modifications that preserve compliance. (Q3) Can we trace graded paths that plausibly increase access risk? We map gradual transitions that progressively violate the constraints. Our contribution operates at three levels: on the engineering side, we present a modular, biologically motivated control architecture; on the theoretical side, we propose a control model of emotions and a methodological template for converting consciousness-related questions into auditable architectural tests; on the safety side, we sketch preliminary audit indicators that may inform future governance frameworks. The architecture functions independently as an emotion-like controller, while the risk-reduction criteria may extend to other AI systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cell 157(1), 187–200 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.003

    Anderson, D.J., Adolphs, R.: A Framework for Studying Emotions across Species. Cell 157(1), 187–200 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.003 2014

  2. [2]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2018)

    Adolphs, R., Anderson, D.J.: The Neuroscience of Emotion: A New Synthesis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Journal of Personality62(4), 459–497 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00306.x

    Andersen, S.M., Baum, A.: Transference in Interpersonal Relations: Inferences and Affect Based on Significant-Other Representations. Journal of Personality62(4), 459–497 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00306.x

    work page arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    PhD thesis, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany (2008)

    Becker-Asano, C.: WASABI: Affect simulation for agents with believable interactivity. PhD thesis, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Progress in Brain Research150, 45–53 (2005) https://doi

    Baars, B.J.: Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Progress in Brain Research150, 45–53 (2005) https://doi. org/10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50004-9

    doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(05)50004-9 2005

  6. [6]

    Cerebral Cortex10(3), 295–307 (2000) https://doi.org/10

    Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A.R.: Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex. Cerebral Cortex10(3), 295–307 (2000) https://doi.org/10. 1093/cercor/10.3.295

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Nature Communications8(2017) https://doi

    Bornstein, A.M., Khaw, M.W., Shohamy, D., Daw, N.D.: Reminders of past choices bias decisions for reward in humans. Nature Communications8(2017) https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms15958

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms15958 2017

  8. [8]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.10.011

    Michel, M., Mudrik, L., Peters, M.A.K., Schwitzgebel, E., Simon, J., VanRullen, R.: Identifying indicators of consciousness in AI systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.10.011

    doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.10.011 2025

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    In: Savage, C.W

    Block, N.: Troubles with Functionalism. In: Savage, C.W. (ed.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 9, pp. 261–325. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1978)

    1978

  2. [10]

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences18(2), 227–247 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00038188 29

    Block, N.: On a Confusion about a Function of Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences18(2), 227–247 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00038188 29

    1995 doi

  3. [11]

    AI & Society (2026) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02896-z

    Borotschnig, H.: Synthetic Emotions and Consciousness: Exploring Architectural Boundaries. AI & Society (2026) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02896-z

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA (1984)

    Braitenberg, V.: Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology. MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA (1984)

    1984

  5. [13]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies59(1-2), 119–155 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1071-5819(03)00018-1

    Breazeal, C.: Emotion and Sociable Humanoid Robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies59(1-2), 119–155 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1071-5819(03)00018-1

    2003

  6. [14]

    Cognition and Emotion17(2), 181–211 (2003) https://doi.org/10

    Berridge, K.C., Winkielman, P.: What is an unconscious emotion? (The case for uncon- scious “liking”). Cognition and Emotion17(2), 181–211 (2003) https://doi.org/10. 1080/02699930302289

    2003

  7. [15]

    Nature395(6699), 272–274 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1038/26216

    Clayton, N.S., Dickinson, A.: Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature395(6699), 272–274 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1038/26216

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    Consciousness and Cognition36, 414–425 (2015) https://doi.org/10

    Celeghin, A., De Gelder, B., Tamietto, M.: From affective blindsight to emotional consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition36, 414–425 (2015) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.concog.2015.05.007

    2015

  9. [17]

    Putnam, New York (1994)

    Damasio, A.R.: Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Putnam, New York (1994)

    1994

  10. [18]

    Harcourt, New York (1999)

    Damasio, A.R.: The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making Of Consciousness. Harcourt, New York (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    Cognition79(1-2), 1–37 (2001) https://doi

    Dehaene, S., Naccache, L.: Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition79(1-2), 1–37 (2001) https://doi. org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00123-2

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    Cognition & Emotion6(3-4), 169–200 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068

    Ekman, P.: An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion6(3-4), 169–200 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068

    1992 doi

  13. [21]

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review1(4), 429–438 (1994) https://doi.org/10.3758/ BF03210947

    Fanselow, M.S.: Neural organization of the defensive behavior system responsible for fear. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review1(4), 429–438 (1994) https://doi.org/10.3758/ BF03210947

    1994

  14. [22]

    Feinstein, J.S., Buzza, C., Hurlemann, R., Follmer, R.L., Dahdaleh, N.S., Coryell, W.H., Welsh, M.J., Tranel, D., Wemmie, J.A.: Fear and Panic in Humans with Bilateral Amygdala Damage. Nature Neuroscience16(3), 270–272 (2013) https: //doi.org/10.1038/nn.3323 Feldman Barrett, L...

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development6(1), 19–41 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2013.2277589

    Franklin, S., Madl, T., D’Mello, S.K., Snaider, J.: LIDA: A Systems-level Architecture 30 for Cognition, Emotion, and Learning. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development6(1), 19–41 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2013.2277589

    2014

  16. [24]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)

    Frijda, N.H.: The Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews90, 486–501 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.004

    Friston, K.J., Rosch, R., Parr, T., Price, C., Bowman, H.: Deep temporal models and active inference. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews90, 486–501 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.004

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Annual Review of Psychology68, 101–128 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033625

    Gershman, S.J., Daw, N.D.: Reinforcement Learning and Episodic Memory in Humans and Animals: An Integrative Framework. Annual Review of Psychology68, 101–128 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033625

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (2024)

    Gerrans, P.: Anatomy of an Avatar: The Virtual Self in Pathologies of Self Awareness. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2024). https://doi.org/10.1093/9780191994395. 001.0001

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2019)

    Ginsburg, S., Jablonka, E.: The Evolution of the Sensitive Soul: Learning and the Origins of Consciousness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences1(3), 235–254 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021306500055

    Goldie, P.: Emotions, feelings and intentionality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences1(3), 235–254 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021306500055

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    Emotion Review1(3), 248–255 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909103593

    Helm, B.W.: Emotions as evaluative feelings. Emotion Review1(3), 248–255 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909103593

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    guilty look

    Horowitz, A.: Disambiguating the “guilty look”: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour. Behavioural Processes81(3), 447–452 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. beproc.2009.03.014

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    Jiang, H., Vidal, J.M., Huhns, M.N.: EBDI: an architecture for emotional agents. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. AAMAS ’07. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1329...

    2007

  25. [34]

    Reviews in the Neurosciences15(4), 241–251 (2004) https://doi.org/ 10.1515/REVNEURO.2004.15.4.241 31

    Kensinger, E.A.: Remembering emotional experiences: The contribution of valence and arousal. Reviews in the Neurosciences15(4), 241–251 (2004) https://doi.org/ 10.1515/REVNEURO.2004.15.4.241 31

    2004 doi

  26. [35]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991)

    Lazarus, R.S.: Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991)

    1991

  27. [36]

    Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(10), 2016–2025 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619316114

    LeDoux, J.E., Brown, R.: A Higher-Order Theory of Emotional Consciousness. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(10), 2016–2025 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619316114

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    Simon & Schuster, New York (1996)

    LeDoux, J.E.: The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. Simon & Schuster, New York (1996)

    1996

  29. [38]

    Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology23(4–5), 727–738 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025048802629

    LeDoux, J.E.: The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology23(4–5), 727–738 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025048802629

    2003 doi

  30. [39]

    Neuron73(4), 653–676 (2012) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004

    LeDoux, J.E.: Rethinking the Emotional Brain. Neuron73(4), 653–676 (2012) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    Neuroscience of Consciousness2017(1), 1–11 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/ nix016

    Letheby, C., Gerrans, P.: Self unbound: ego dissolution in psychedelic experience. Neuroscience of Consciousness2017(1), 1–11 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/ nix016

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences15(8), 365–373 (2011) https://doi.org/10

    Lau, H., Rosenthal, D.: Empirical Support for Higher-Order Theories of Conscious Awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences15(8), 365–373 (2011) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tics.2011.05.009

    2011

  33. [42]

    Annual Review of Neuroscience27, 1–28 (2004) https://doi

    McGaugh, J.L.: The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review of Neuroscience27, 1–28 (2004) https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144157

    2004

  34. [43]

    Current Psychology14(4), 261– 292 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686918

    Mehrabian, A.: Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current Psychology14(4), 261– 292 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686918

    1996 doi

  35. [44]

    Cogni- tive Systems Research10(1), 70–90 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2008

    Marsella, S.C., Gratch, J.: EMA: A process model of appraisal dynamics. Cogni- tive Systems Research10(1), 70–90 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2008. 03.005

    2009 doi

  36. [45]

    Nature518(7540), 529–533 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14236

    Graves, A., Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A.K., Ostrovski, G.,et al.: Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature518(7540), 529–533 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14236

    2015 doi

  37. [46]

    Neuron105(5), 776–798 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026 NIST: Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

    Mashour, G.A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J., Dehaene, S.: Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis. Neuron105(5), 776–798 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026 NIST: Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Technica...

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Ortony, A., Clore, G.L., Collins, A.: The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571299

    1988 doi

  39. [48]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)

    Panksepp, J.: Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)

    1998

  40. [49]

    Panksepp, J., Biven, L.: The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions. W. W. Norton, New York (2012)

    2012

  41. [50]

    In: Precup, D., Teh, Y.W

    Pritzel, A., Uria, B., Srinivasan, S., Badia, A.P., Vinyals, O., Hassabis, D., Wierstra, D., Blundell, C.: Neural Episodic Control. In: Precup, D., Teh, Y.W. (eds.) Pro- ceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research...

    2017

  42. [51]

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences23(6), 877–901 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00004015

    Revonsuo, A.: The reinterpretation of dreams: An evolutionary hypothesis of the function of dreaming. Behavioral and Brain Sciences23(6), 877–901 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00004015

    2000 doi

  43. [52]

    Francisco, CA (1995). pp. 312–319

    1995

  44. [53]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)

    Rolls, E.T.: Emotion and Decision-Making Explained. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659890.001.0001

    2013

  45. [54]

    Cortex59, 185–193 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.020

    Rolls, E.T.: Emotion and decision-making explained: A pr´ ecis. Cortex59, 185–193 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.020

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)

    Rosenthal, D.M.: Consciousness and Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)

    2005

  47. [56]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp

    Loud, J., Theron, D., Barnes, P.: Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 33–44 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873

    2020

  48. [57]

    Psychological Review110(1), 145–172 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145

    Russell, J.A.: Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review110(1), 145–172 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145

    2003 doi

  49. [58]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2025)

    Sharkey, L., Chughtai, B., Batson, J., Lindsey, J., Wu, J., Bushnaq, L., Goldowsky-Dill, N., Heimersheim, S., Ortega, A., Bloom, J.I., et al.: Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2025)

    2025

  50. [59]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences17(11), 565–573 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09

    Seth, A.K.: Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences17(11), 565–573 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09. 007 33

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–42 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X25000032

    Seth, A.K.: Conscious artificial intelligence and biological naturalism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–42 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X25000032

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    Psychological Review63(2), 129–138 (1956) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769

    Simon, H.A.: Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review63(2), 129–138 (1956) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769

    1956 doi

  53. [62]

    Psychological Review 74(1), 29–39 (1967) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024127

    Simon, H.A.: Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review 74(1), 29–39 (1967) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024127

    1967 doi

  54. [63]

    Cognition & Emotion7(3–4), 233–269 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02699939308409189

    Smith, C.A., Lazarus, R.S.: Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition & Emotion7(3–4), 233–269 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02699939308409189

    1993

  55. [64]

    (eds.): Appraisal Processes in Emotion: The- ory, Methods, Research

    Scherer, K.R., Schorr, A., Johnstone, T. (eds.): Appraisal Processes in Emotion: The- ory, Methods, Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oso/9780195130072.001.0001

    2001

  56. [65]

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience17(7), 450–461 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.44

    Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., Koch, C.: Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience17(7), 450–461 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.44

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience11(10), 697–709 (2010) https://doi.org/10

    Tamietto, M., De Gelder, B.: Neural bases of the non-conscious perception of emotional signals. Nature Reviews Neuroscience11(10), 697–709 (2010) https://doi.org/10. 1038/nrn2889

    2010

  58. [67]

    Applied Cognitive Psychology21(5), 557–578 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1002/acp.1293

    Talarico, J.M., Rubin, D.C.: Flashbulb memories are special after all; in phenomenol- ogy, not accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology21(5), 557–578 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1002/acp.1293

    2007 doi

  59. [68]

    Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadi- enne26(1), 1–12 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017

    Tulving, E.: Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadi- enne26(1), 1–12 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017

    1985 doi

  60. [69]

    Annual Review of Psychology 53, 1–25 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114

    Tulving, E.: Episodic Memory: From Mind to Brain. Annual Review of Psychology 53, 1–25 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114

    2002

  61. [70]

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1156(1), 168–197 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632

    Walker, M.P.: The Role of Sleep in Cognition and Emotion. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1156(1), 168–197 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632. 2009.04416.x

    2009 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Frontiers in Psychology6, 500 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500

    Webb, T.W., Graziano, M.S.A.: The Attention Schema Theory: A Mechanistic Account of Subjective Awareness. Frontiers in Psychology6, 500 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500

    2015

  63. [72]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)56006-6 34

    Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)56006-6 34

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.