Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39735388›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2024

The case for neurons: a no-go theorem for consciousness on a chip.

Johannes Kleiner, Tim Ludwig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Computers, meaning, and consciousness.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Johannes KleinerMunich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, Munich 80539, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2197-8898
Tim LudwigDepartment of Philosophy, Institute of Technology Futures, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Douglasstraße 24, Karlsruhe 76133, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3678-0785

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We apply the methodology of no-go theorems as developed in physics to the question of artificial consciousness. The result is a no-go theorem which shows that under a general assumption, called dynamical relevance, Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that run on contemporary computer chips cannot be conscious. Consciousness is dynamically relevant, simply put, if, according to a theory of consciousness, it is relevant for the temporal evolution of a system's states. The no-go theorem rests on facts about semiconductor development: that AI systems run on central processing units, graphics processing units, tensor processing units, or other processors which have been designed and verified to adhere to computational dynamics that systematically preclude or suppress deviations. Whether our result resolves the question of AI consciousness on contemporary processors depends on the truth of the theorem's main assumption, dynamical relevance, which this paper does not establish.

Indexed as

Artificial ConsciousnessArtificial IntelligenceArtificial SentienceLarge Language ModelMachine ConsciousnessNo-Go TheoremSynthetic Phenomenology

Identifiers

PMID39735388
PMCPMC11671748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.