On biological and artificial consciousness: A case for biological computationalism.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews February 1, 2026 DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106524 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Artificial consciousness Artificial intelligence Artificial neural networks Biological computation Biological naturalism Computational functionalism Digital computation Emergence Hybrid systems Large language models Multiscale dynamics Scale inseparability |
| Citations | 7 |
| Key points | Argues that consciousness in biological systems depends on scale-inseparable multiscale processing and hybrid discrete-continuous computations, features absent in current AI systems. |
Abstract
The rapid advances in the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have galvanised public and scientific debates over whether artificial systems might one day be conscious. Prevailing optimism is often grounded in computational functionalism: the assumption that consciousness is determined solely by the right pattern of information processing, independent of the physical substrate. Opposing this, biological naturalism insists that conscious experience is fundamentally dependent on the concrete physical processes of living systems. Despite the centrality of these positions to the artificial consciousness debate, there is currently no coherent framework that explains how biological computation differs from digital computation, and why this difference might matter for consciousness. Here, we argue that the absence of consciousness in artificial systems is not merely due to missing functional organisation but reflects a deeper divide between digital and biological modes of computation and the dynamico-structural dependencies of living organisms. Specifically, we propose that biological systems support conscious processing because they (i) instantiate scale-inseparable, substrate-dependent multiscale processing as a metabolic optimisation strategy, and (ii) alongside discrete computations, they perform continuous-valued computations due to the very nature of the fluidic substrate from which they are composed. These features - scale inseparability and hybrid computations - are not peripheral, but essential to the brain's mode of computation. In light of these differences, we outline the foundational principles of a biological theory of computation and explain why current artificial intelligence systems are unlikely to replicate conscious processing as it arises in biology.
Citations in the library
Cited by 10
- From chemistry to cognition: the adaptive origins of consciousness under constraint Frontiers in Neuroscience September 1, 2026
- Mind-Altering Digital Technologies: A Scoping Review International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction July 10, 2026
- What Is Enactivism? Adaptive Behavior May 20, 2026
- What matters is not what lies dormant beneath: why AI consciousness is not about biological substrates Synthese March 31, 2026
- The Global Neuronal Workspace as a multilevel model of conscious processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences June 1, 2026
and 5 more in the library
Cites 10
- A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior Science Translational Medicine August 14, 2013
- Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience July 1, 2022
- Integrated Information in Discrete Dynamical Systems: Motivation and Theoretical Framework PLoS Computational Biology June 12, 2008
- Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. March 1, 2014
- An integrative, multiscale view on neural theories of consciousness. Neuron May 15, 2024
and 5 more in the library