The impossible task of peering into another mind

Space · Published 28 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: We can observe a bird fly or an octopus hunt, but we can never truly experience their inner lives. Because consciousness is private, scientists must rely on proxies—behavior, anatomy, and neural activity—to guess who else might be feeling something. This creates a profound scientific and ethical dilemma.

The fundamental problem of consciousness lies in its subjectivity: we can never directly experience the mind of another being. Because of this 'private' nature, researchers like Lucia Melloni must rely on indirect evidence to determine if other species possess conscious experiences. This involves analyzing a combination of outward behaviors, physical anatomy, and specific patterns of neural activity across a wide range of life forms, including babies, mammals, birds, fish, insects, and octopuses. In Frankfurt, the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics hosts a research team headed by Lucia Melloni. She also holds a position as Research Professor in Neurology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

The scientific community is currently engaged in what some call 'consciousness wars.' There are dozens of competing theories regarding how the brain produces conscious experience. These theories often conflict so significantly that academics frequently find it difficult to reach a consensus on even basic principles. For example, different frameworks offer wildly different predictions about which systems—biological or artificial—might be capable of hosting consciousness. The lack of agreement among experts was highlighted during a 2018 meeting about consciousness research. This discord illustrates how difficult it is for the scientific community to reach a unified conclusion on the mind's mechanics.

One specific nuance involves Integrated Information Theory (IIT). While some might assume any complex system could be conscious under this theory, the actual criterion is much stricter: a system must possess a specific kind of information structure. Under these rules, an AI would not meet the requirements for consciousness. Because our understanding remains incomplete and contested, many argue that scientists should adopt a cautious ethical approach when dealing with the uncertainty of another being's sentience. A correction issued in January 2024 clarified that complex systems alone do not guarantee sentience under certain theories. This distinction highlights how specific structural requirements are necessary for consciousness to emerge.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Is consciousness a biological luxury reserved only for warm-blooded animals like us?
• Why the human brain remains the most mysterious organ in our known universe
• Why your brain's physical activity doesn't explain your internal experience
• How does the brain's biology create our subjective experience of the world?
• To understand the human mind, we must stop using it as the universal standard.
• The ocean's invisible inhabitants are the true lungs of our planet
• Why molecular biology needs philosophy to understand the human experience
• How a 1950s engine design continues to power modern missions to the moon
• Understanding the Geological Mechanics Behind Tsunami Devastation
• NASA initially rejected the Landsat program, now its most valuable investment in space technology.
• Why did humans evolve to care for complete strangers?
• Why the most advanced civilizations might skip the Dyson Sphere

More in Space · Latest · A–Z · All topics