ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Can artificial systems become conscious?-Recursive embodied closure as an integrative framework.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advances in artificial intelligence, connectomics, and computational neuroscience increasingly raise the question of whether artificial systems-or even pure computer simulations-could become conscious. Contemporary theories emphasize embodiment, predictive processing, homeostatic regulation, and continuous interaction between cognition, body, and environment rather than isolated computation. We propose recursive embodied closure as an integrative framework linking embodied, predictive, functionalist, and dynamical approaches to consciousness. Rather than replacing existing theories, the framework identifies a shared organizational principle: the continuous recursive coupling of cognition, bodily regulation, action, and environmental feedback. We argue that consciousness may, in principle, emerge in artificial systems, including computational simulations, for three reasons. First, consciousness may depend on recursively closed loops linking cognition, body, and environment, and such loops could also be realized in robotic, neuromorphic, or virtual embodiments. Second, evidence from comparative neuroscience, convergent evolution, neurotechnology, and philosophy of mind suggests that the mechanisms relevant for consciousness are largely substrate-independent and may therefore be implemented in both biological and artificial systems. Third, although unknown physical mechanisms cannot be excluded, there is currently no empirical evidence for biological processes that are uniquely necessary for consciousness. Taken together, these considerations support the view that consciousness is best understood as an emergent property of recursively embodied, environmentally embedded cognitive systems rather than of biological matter itself. If so, biological brains, artificial neural networks, neuromorphic hardware, and even virtual agents may constitute plausible candidates for future artificial consciousness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.