Anil Seth's Conscious AI Target Article Published in BBS with 50 Peer Commentaries

Consciousness scientist Anil Seth (University of Sussex) announced the publication of his target article "Conscious AI and Biological Naturalism" in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, accompanied by 50 expert commentaries—a large-scale scholarly confrontation on AI consciousness. Seth takes a skeptical stance, arguing via biological naturalism that consciousness may be inseparable from life itself.

Confirmed

• The target article is officially published in BBS with 50 commentaries after years of preparation; Seth called it one of the most rewarding experiences of his career.
• Seth recounted the article's journey: first released as a preprint more than two years ago, followed by extensive discussion and review.
• The article distinguishes genuinely conscious AI from AI that irresistibly appears conscious, and separates intelligence from consciousness. Seth remains reserved about whether silicon-based digital systems can be conscious.
• As relayed by @ValerioCapraro and @DimitrisPapail, Seth's biological naturalism holds that consciousness may be inseparable from being alive: biological neurons are living cells that regulate their chemical environments and consume energy, not simple input-output computers, so consciousness cannot be equated with computation.
• UCL computational neuroscientist Maxwell Ramstead's BBS commentary distinguishes computational modeling from computational metaphysics (the Computational Theory of Mind), arguing that simulating consciousness is not the same as actually performing the relevant computations.
• Roger Highfield of the Science Museum Group echoed Seth, Peter Coveney, Geoff Hinton and Penrose, questioning why digital computers that cannot even compute simple chaotic systems accurately should be expected to replicate minds, proposing the notion of "simulant intelligence."

Why it matters

• The 50 commentaries assemble rare large-scale scholarly disagreement on whether silicon systems can be conscious.
• Seth's biological naturalism offers a framework distinct from pan-computationalism, while Ramstead's modeling-vs-metaphysics distinction clarifies the debate's conceptual foundations.
• These exchanges directly inform how AI safety and ethics discussions assess premises about machine consciousness.

2026-09-18 ~ 2026-09-19 · 15 related posts

• [source] Anil Seth's Conscious AI and Biological Naturalism collection out in BBS with fifty commentaries — anilkseth · 2026-09-18
• [source] Anil Seth reflects on two years of debate over his conscious-AI target article — anilkseth · 2026-09-18
• Anil Seth's 'Conscious AI and Biological Naturalism' collection published in BBS with 50 commentaries — anilkseth · 2026-09-18
• Digital machines can't faithfully simulate chaos — so why assume they can reproduce a mind? — anilkseth · 2026-09-18
• Ramstead in BBS: simulating consciousness computationally doesn't mean a system literally computes it — mjdramstead · 2026-09-18
• Anil Seth makes the case for biological naturalism: conscious AI may need to be alive — ValerioCapraro · 2026-09-18
• Anil Seth argues consciousness may be inseparable from life in new AI consciousness paper — DimitrisPapail · 2026-09-18

8 near-duplicate retellings: anilkseth · yeastsplainer · anilkseth · mjdramstead · anilkseth · anilkseth · ValerioCapraro · AnnaCiaunica