pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.20839 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-17 · 🧬 q-bio.NC · cs.AI

On the evolutionary cognitive pressure for experiential awareness: do machines need it?

Warisa Sritriratanarak , Paulo Garcia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC cs.AI
keywords experiential awarenessevolutionary baggageartificial intelligenceconsciousnesshigher-level reasoningneurological reactionsmachine intelligence
0
0 comments X

The pith

Biological systems need experiential awareness for higher reasoning due to evolutionary baggage from autonomous neurological reactions, but artificial systems can achieve high intelligence without it.

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

The paper examines whether experiential awareness is required for machines to reach advanced intelligence levels. It traces this awareness in biological organisms to evolutionary baggage consisting of autonomous neurological reactions that must be managed for coherent higher-level reasoning. These reactions create a structural dependency on experiential awareness in living systems. Artificial architectures, free from any such inherited constraints, can be engineered for arbitrary intelligence without incorporating experiential awareness. This separation reduces the ethical complexity of AI development and suggests fresh ways to assess whether a machine possesses consciousness.

Core claim

Because of evolutionary baggage in the form of autonomous neurological reactions, experiential awareness is necessary for higher-level reasoning to be possible in biological organisms. Artificial systems lack this legacy and can therefore be designed with an arbitrary level of intelligence without the need for experiential awareness. This possibility simplifies ethical considerations on artificial intelligence and opens new approaches to the discernment of artificial consciousness.

What carries the argument

Evolutionary baggage from autonomous neurological reactions, which creates a computational necessity for experiential awareness in biological reasoning but is absent in artificial system designs.

If this is right

  • Artificial systems can reach high intelligence levels without experiential awareness.
  • Ethical considerations around machine consciousness become simpler to manage.
  • New methods for detecting artificial consciousness become feasible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Consciousness may be an evolutionary workaround for specific biological constraints rather than a prerequisite for all forms of intelligence.
  • AI design could deliberately exclude awareness-related features to improve efficiency and reduce ethical overhead.
  • Empirical tests on existing AI models performing reasoning tasks without any awareness simulation could help evaluate the claim.

Load-bearing premise

Autonomous neurological reactions constitute evolutionary baggage that structurally requires experiential awareness for higher-level reasoning in biological organisms.

What would settle it

A documented case of higher-level reasoning occurring in a biological organism without experiential awareness, or an artificial system that demonstrably requires experiential awareness despite having no evolutionary legacy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.20839 by Paulo Garcia, Warisa Sritriratanarak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual view of consciousness as a control switch for autonomous responses on reactive substrates. Top: non-conscious reasoning entity. Sensory sub-system re-use for processing hypothetical scenarios may trigger autonomous responses on real world state. Bottom: conscious reasoning entity. Consciousness switch controlled by high-level reasoning distinguishes between real and hypothetical input, allows id… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The consciousness standing for artificial intelligence divides opinions across epistemological positions. Whether or not machines can be conscious, and whether we can ascertain the truth of such a proposition for any given case, has consequential ethical implications. This challenge is exacerbated by the lack of consensus on the nature of consciousness. We address an orthogonal problem: regardless of this nature of, is it \textit{required} for machines? Specifically, we focus on a constituent element of consciousness -experiential awareness- and examine why it arose evolutionarily in biological organisms, from a computational perspective. We show that, because of evolutionary "baggage" -autonomous neurological reactions- experiential awareness is necessary for higher-level reasoning to be possible. The implication is that, given artificial systems are architected without such legacy considerations, it is possible to design them with an arbitrary level of intelligence, without the need for experiential awareness. This possibility simplifies ethical considerations on artificial intelligence, and opens new approaches to the discernment of artificial consciousness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues from a computational perspective that experiential awareness—a constituent of consciousness—arose evolutionarily in biological organisms because of autonomous neurological reactions (termed evolutionary 'baggage'). This baggage is claimed to make experiential awareness structurally necessary for higher-level reasoning. Artificial systems, architected without such legacy constraints, can therefore achieve arbitrary intelligence without experiential awareness, which in turn simplifies ethical considerations for AI and suggests new approaches to detecting artificial consciousness.

Significance. If the asserted necessity could be grounded in a concrete computational account, the result would reframe debates on machine consciousness by separating the question of necessity from that of possibility and would offer a principled basis for designing high-intelligence systems that avoid experiential awareness. The paper correctly isolates an orthogonal issue to the hard problem and draws a clear biological-versus-artificial distinction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and core argument: the claim that autonomous neurological reactions create a structural necessity for experiential awareness in higher-level reasoning is asserted without any derivation, model, or computational demonstration showing why these reactions cannot be accommodated by direct integration, predictive coding, or modular architectures. This absence leaves the central necessity as a premise rather than a derived result.
  2. [Main argument] The manuscript provides no formal architectural analysis or falsifiable criterion that distinguishes the biological case (where awareness is required) from the artificial case (where it can be omitted), making the claimed implication for machine design rest on an unelaborated premise.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The phrasing 'regardless of this nature of, is it required for machines?' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised for clarity.
  2. [Abstract] The parenthetical insertion '-autonomous neurological reactions-' after 'evolutionary baggage' would be clearer if rephrased as a full clause or placed in parentheses.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and core argument: the claim that autonomous neurological reactions create a structural necessity for experiential awareness in higher-level reasoning is asserted without any derivation, model, or computational demonstration showing why these reactions cannot be accommodated by direct integration, predictive coding, or modular architectures. This absence leaves the central necessity as a premise rather than a derived result.

    Authors: We agree that the necessity claim benefits from more explicit step-by-step reasoning. The manuscript derives the necessity from the logical properties of evolutionary baggage: autonomous reactions are, by definition, not subject to top-down control and therefore introduce irreducible conflicts when higher reasoning must incorporate their outputs. Direct integration or predictive coding cannot eliminate this requirement because the reactions remain outside the predictive or modular loop by virtue of their historical autonomy. We have revised the abstract and added a dedicated paragraph in the main text that walks through this incompatibility with the listed alternatives. A full computational model or simulation lies outside the scope of the present conceptual analysis. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Main argument] The manuscript provides no formal architectural analysis or falsifiable criterion that distinguishes the biological case (where awareness is required) from the artificial case (where it can be omitted), making the claimed implication for machine design rest on an unelaborated premise.

    Authors: The distinction rests on the presence versus absence of evolutionary baggage. We have added a new subsection that defines this criterion formally: a system requires experiential awareness if and only if it must integrate outputs from legacy autonomous components that cannot be removed or fully subordinated without loss of function. Biological architectures satisfy this condition; clean-slate artificial architectures do not. This supplies both an architectural contrast and a falsifiable test (presence of irreducible autonomous legacy reactions). The revision makes the implication for machine design rest on this explicit criterion rather than an implicit premise. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central necessity claim rests on definitional framing of experiential awareness via evolutionary baggage

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "We show that, because of evolutionary 'baggage' -autonomous neurological reactions- experiential awareness is necessary for higher-level reasoning to be possible. The implication is that, given artificial systems are architected without such legacy considerations, it is possible to design them with an arbitrary level of intelligence, without the need for experiential awareness."

    Experiential awareness is introduced as the element whose evolutionary role is to address the baggage, after which the same role is invoked to conclude its necessity for reasoning; the 'showing' therefore reduces to restating the premise rather than deriving a non-tautological architectural constraint.

full rationale

The paper's derivation begins by positing autonomous neurological reactions as evolutionary baggage and then asserts that experiential awareness is thereby required for higher-level reasoning in biological systems. This step is presented as a computational insight but lacks an independent model, equation, or external benchmark demonstrating structural necessity rather than compatibility with alternative architectures. The conclusion for artificial systems follows directly from the initial framing without additional derivation, producing moderate circular content. No self-citations, fitted parameters, or renamings are evident in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the nature of consciousness and evolutionary computational constraints without independent evidence or derivations supplied in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Experiential awareness is a constituent element of consciousness.
    Explicitly stated when the authors focus on this element to examine its evolutionary origin.
  • ad hoc to paper Autonomous neurological reactions from evolutionary history create baggage that necessitates experiential awareness for higher-level reasoning in biological organisms.
    This is the load-bearing premise used to distinguish biological from artificial systems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5699 in / 1251 out tokens · 35106 ms · 2026-05-18T06:20:54.556045+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    & Kouider, S

    Dehaene, S., Lau, H. & Kouider, S. What is consciousness, and could machines have it?Robotics, AI, humanity: Sci. ethics, policy43–56 (2021). 3.Frankish, K. The anti-zombie argument.The Philos. Q.57, 650–666 (2007)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Broom, D. M. Concepts and interrelationships of awareness, consciousness, sentience, and welfare.J. Conscious. Stud.29, 129–149 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    What is computational intelligence and where is it going? InChallenges for computational intelligence, 1–13 (Springer, 2007)

    Duch, W. What is computational intelligence and where is it going? InChallenges for computational intelligence, 1–13 (Springer, 2007). 6.Minsky, M. L. & Laske, O. A conversation with marvin minsky.AI Mag.13, 31–31 (1992). 7.JO, A. The quest to test for consciousness.Nature643, 31 (2025)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Kuhn, R. L. A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications.Prog. biophysics molecular biology190, 28–169 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience.Behav

    Block, N. Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience.Behav. brain sciences30, 481–499 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    & Koch, C

    Melloni, L., Mudrik, L., Pitts, M. & Koch, C. Making the hard problem of consciousness easier.Science372, 911–912 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Butlin, P.et al.Consciousness in artificial intelligence: insights from the science of consciousness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08708(2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Interior grounding, reflection, and self-consciousness

    Minsky, M. Interior grounding, reflection, and self-consciousness. InInformation and Computation: Essays on Scientific and Philosophical Understanding of Foundations of Information and Computation, 287–305 (World Scientific, 2011). 13.Minsky, M. Decentralized minds.Behav. Brain Sci.3, 439–440 (1980). 14.Pigliucci, M. Are plants conscious.SKEPTICAL INQUIRE...

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Zhang, W.State-space search: Algorithms, complexity, extensions, and applications(Springer Science & Business Media, 1999)

    work page 1999

  10. [10]

    reports10, 9939 (2020)

    Bui, X.-N.et al.Prediction of slope failure in open-pit mines using a novel hybrid artificial intelligence model based on decision tree and evolution algorithm.Sci. reports10, 9939 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    VanderBrug, G. J. & Minker, J. State-space problem-reduction, and theorem proving-some relationships.Commun. ACM 18, 107–115 (1975). 19.Núñez, R.et al.What happened to cognitive science?Nat. human behaviour3, 782–791 (2019). 20.Edwards, W. The theory of decision making.Psychol. bulletin51, 380 (1954)

    work page 1975

  12. [12]

    advances10, eadk3953 (2024)

    Huang, J.et al.Neuronal representation of visual working memory content in the primate primary visual cortex.Sci. advances10, eadk3953 (2024). 8/10

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    & Curtis, C

    Dake, M. & Curtis, C. E. Perturbing human v1 degrades the fidelity of visual working memory.Nat. communications16, 1–8 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    G., Kempen, K

    Vredeveldt, A., Tredoux, C. G., Kempen, K. & Nortje, A. Eye remember what happened: Eye-closure improves recall of events but not face recognition.Appl. Cogn. Psychol.29, 169–180 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J.-P

    Mashour, G. A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J.-P. & Dehaene, S. Conscious processing and the global neuronal workspace hypothesis.Neuron105, 776–798 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Chitty-Venkata, K. T. & Somani, A. K. Neural architecture search survey: A hardware perspective.ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 1–36 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Niell, C. M. & Scanziani, M. How cortical circuits implement cortical computations: mouse visual cortex as a model. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.44, 517–546 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    C., Yoo, A

    Li, H.-H., Sprague, T. C., Yoo, A. H., Ma, W. J. & Curtis, C. E. Neural mechanisms of resource allocation in working memory.Sci. Adv.11, eadr8015 (2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Chen, W., Mo, Z., Xu, H., Ye, K. & Xu, C. Interference-aware multiplexing for deep learning in gpu clusters: A middleware approach. InProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 1–15 (2023). 29.Shi, H.et al.Task-irrelevant features in working memory alter current visual processing.bioRxiv20...

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    & Hofer, S

    Mederos, S., Blakely, P., Vissers, N., Clopath, C. & Hofer, S. B. Overwriting an instinct: Visual cortex instructs learning to suppress fear responses.Science387, 682–688 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Hudson, A. J. Pain perception and response: central nervous system mechanisms.Can. journal neurological sciences27, 2–16 (2000)

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    Neurosci.29, 12236–12243 (2009)

    Mobbs, D.et al.From threat to fear: the neural organization of defensive fear systems in humans.J. Neurosci.29, 12236–12243 (2009). 35.Kim, S.et al.Artificial stimulus-response system capable of conscious response.Sci. Adv.7, eabe3996 (2021). 36.Gerson, M. C., Abdul-Waheed, M. & Millard, R. W. Of fight and flight.J. nuclear cardiology16, 176–179 (2009). 3...

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    39.Birch, J.The edge of sentience: risk and precaution in humans, other animals, and AI(Oxford University Press, 2024)

    Chen, X.et al.Transcriptomic mapping uncovers purkinje neuron plasticity driving learning.Nature605, 722–727 (2022). 39.Birch, J.The edge of sentience: risk and precaution in humans, other animals, and AI(Oxford University Press, 2024)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    & Navarro, J

    Kerautret, L., Dabic, S. & Navarro, J. Exploring hazard anticipation and stress while driving in light of defensive behavior theory.Sci. reports13, 7883 (2023). 41.Tassi, P. & Muzet, A. Defining the states of consciousness.Neurosci. & Biobehav. Rev.25, 175–191 (2001)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Huang, Z., Zhang, J., Wu, J., Mashour, G. A. & Hudetz, A. G. Temporal circuit of macroscale dynamic brain activity supports human consciousness.Sci. advances6, eaaz0087 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    & Rinnert, P

    Nieder, A., Wagener, L. & Rinnert, P. A neural correlate of sensory consciousness in a corvid bird.Science369, 1626–1629 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Ballentine, G., Friedman, S. F. & Bzdok, D. Trips and neurotransmitters: Discovering principled patterns across 6850 hallucinogenic experiences.Sci. advances8, eabl6989 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    J., Berger, P

    Watson, S. J., Berger, P. A., Akil, H., Mills, M. J. & Barchas, J. D. Effects of naloxone on schizophrenia: Reduction in hallucinations in a subpopulation of subjects.Science201, 73–76 (1978). 46.Chalmers, D. J. Facing up to the problem of consciousness.J. consciousness studies2, 200–219 (1995). 47.Márton, M. What does the zombie argument prove?Acta Anal....

    work page 1978

  29. [29]

    & Wittmann, M

    Kent, L. & Wittmann, M. Time consciousness: the missing link in theories of consciousness.Neurosci. Conscious.2021, niab011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Metacognition and consciousness(Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, University of Haifa

    Koriat, A.et al. Metacognition and consciousness(Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, University of Haifa . . . , 2006). 9/10 51.Tononi, G.et al.Consciousness or pseudo-consciousness? a clash of two paradigms.Nat. Neurosci.1–9 (2025)

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    & Penrose, R

    Hameroff, S. & Penrose, R. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘orch or’theory.Phys. life reviews11, 39–78 (2014). Author contributions statement W.S. and P.G. contributed equally to this work, formulating the initial hypothesis. P.G. was responsible for initial manuscript draft; W.S. was responsible for revisions and editing. Data Availability...

    work page 2014