Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Football-Sized Fossil Creature May Have Been One Of The First Land Animals To Eat Its Veggies


A reconstruction of Tyrannoroter heberti, eating a fern. Illustration by Hannah Fredd

By 


Life on Earth started in the oceans. Sometime around 475 million years ago, plants began making their way from the water onto the land, and it took another 100 million years for the first animals with backbones to join them. But for tens of millions of years, these early land-dwelling creatures only ate their fellow animals, rather than grazing on greenery. In a new paper in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, scientists describe the 307-million-year-old fossil of one of the earliest known land vertebrates that evolved the ability to eat plants.

“This is one of the oldest known four-legged animals to eat its veggies,” says Arjan Mann, assistant curator of fossil fishes and early tetrapods at the Field Museum in Chicago and co-lead author of the study. “It shows that experimentation with herbivory goes all the way back to the earliest terrestrial tetrapods—the ancient relatives of all land vertebrates, including us.”

“The specimen is the first of its group to receive a detailed 3D reconstruction, which allowed us to look inside its skull and reveal its specialized teeth, helping us to trace the origin of terrestrial herbivory,” says Zifang Xiong, a PhD student at the University of Toronto and co-lead author of the paper.

The researchers named the new species Tyrannoroter heberti, meaning Hebert’s tyrant digger, in honor of its discoverer, Brian Hebert. The animal’s skull is the only part that scientists have found, but based on the size of its head and the more complete skeletons of its relatives, Tyrannoroter was probably a stocky four-legged creature about a foot long. “It was roughly the size and shape of an American football,” says Mann. By modern standards, that’s not terribly large, but it was one of the largest land-dwelling animals of its time. Tyrannoroter probably looked a little like a lizard, but it lived before the ancestors of reptiles and mammals split off from each other, so it technically wasn’t a reptile.

The team found Tyrannoroter on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, under harsh fieldwork conditions. “Nova Scotia has the highest tides in the world—when we’re working there, we’re racing against the tide, when the ocean comes back in,” says Mann. “It’s very rocky, and the fossils are in cliffs on the shore. Paleontologists hate excavating in cliffs, because the cliff could come down on you.”


Brian Hebert, an avocational paleontologist from Nova Scotia, discovered the small skull in a fossilized tree stump during a field season led by Hillary Maddin, a professor of paleontology at Carleton University. “The skull was wide and heart-shaped, really narrow at the snout but really wide at the back,” says Mann. “Within five seconds of looking at it, I was like, ‘Oh, that’s a pantylid microsaur.’”

The pantylids are a fairly early chapter in the story of vertebrate animals living on land. When lobe-finned fish first evolved limbs that let them scoot onto the land, they still depended largely on their watery homes. “The pantylids are from the second phase of terrestriality, when animals became permanently adapted to life on dry land,” says Mann. They’re what scientists call stem amniotes—animals closely related to the group of tetrapods that evolved eggs that could stay dry outside of water. In later years, these stem amniotes would split into reptiles and the early ancestors of mammals.

Mann prepared the specimen by carefully chipping away rock from the fossilized bone, but the skull had fossilized with its mouth closed, and internal structures like its brain case remained hidden. To see inside the skull, the researchers CT scanned it, producing a series of stackable X-ray images to generate a 3D picture.

“We were most excited to see what was hidden inside the mouth of this animal once it was scanned—a mouth jam-packed with a whole additional set of teeth for crushing and grinding food, like plants,” says Maddin, the study’s senior author. These teeth, including ones on the roof of its mouth, hint that our stem amniote tetrapod relatives were eating plants sooner than scientists had previously thought.

“Tyrannoroter heberti is of great interest because it was long thought that herbivory was restricted to amniotes. It is a stem amniote but has a specialized dentition that could be used for processing plant fodder,” says Hans Sues, senior research geologist and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and co-author of the study.

That’s not to say that Tyrannoroter ate only plants. “When Hans Sues was my advisor during my post-doctoral fellowship at the Smithsonian, he would always say that just about all herbivores alive today consume at least some animal protein, and that herbivory is best seen as a gradient,” says Mann. Tyrannoroter probably ate smaller animals, including insects, in addition to vegetation, and the insect exoskeletons in early tetrapods’ diets may have paved the way for stem amniotes like Tyrannoroter to be able to crush and process tough plant materials. What’s more, digesting the bodies of plant-eating insects may have given early tetrapods the gut flora and microbes they would need to process plants.

In addition to shedding light on the origins of herbivory, the research could also provide insights into what happens when plant-eating animals are faced with the destruction of those plants. Tyrannoroter lived near the end of the Carboniferous Period, when the planet underwent a period of climate change, the last icehouse-to-greenhouse transition since the one we’re currently in. “At the end of the Carboniferous, the rainforest ecosystems collapsed, and we had a period of global warming,” says Mann. “The lineage of animals that Tyrannoroter belongs to didn’t do very well. This could be a data point in the bigger picture of what happens to plant-eating animals when climate change rapidly alters their ecosystems and the plants that can grow there.”

A LITTLE GOOD NEWS

Public Notice Error Forces Delay In Federal Oil Lease Sale In Arctic Alaska

File photo of lakes and connecting streams in the northeastern part of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. (Photo by Bob Wick/U.S. Bureau of Land Management)

February 11, 2026 
Alaska Beacon
By Yereth Rosen

(Alaska Beacon) — A federal oil and gas lease sale in Alaska that was to have been held in early March has now been postponed for nine days because of public notice mistakes.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management said Tuesday it has rescheduled its planned lease sale for 5.5 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The sale would have been on March 9, but will now be held on March 18, the BLM said.

A legally required Federal Register notice failed to publish as scheduled last week. The BLM has reissued the notice and said it is now scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

Federal law requires such published notices at least 30 days before lease sales.

This is the first of five NPR-A lease sales mandated under the sweeping budget and tax bill called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” The act, passed and signed into law last summer, requires at least five NPR-A lease sales, each offering at least 4 million acres, to be held by 2035.

It is also the first NPR-A lease sale scheduled since 2019, under the first Trump administration, and the first conducted under a new Trump administration management plan that opened long-protected areas of the reserve to leasing.

The Trump plan makes 82% of the 23-million-acre reserve available for leasing, including areas in and around Teshekpuk Lake, the largest North Slope lake and habitat for migratory birds, a caribou herd and other Arctic wildlife. Under an Obama administration plan that was in place until now, about half of the reserve was available for leasing and the Teshekpuk Lake area was among five designated “special areas” protected from development.

A new lawsuit is pending over the Trump administration’s decision to strip protections for the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd and its habitat. That lawsuit was filed by an organization in Nuiqsut, the Inupiat village closest to existing NPR-A development. The organization, representing Nuiqsut’s city and tribal governments and for-profit village corporation, had negotiated a conservation agreement that was signed by the Biden administration in late 2024; in December, the Trump administration canceled the agreement.

Exactly what acreage will be auctioned off in the March 19 lease sale was not clear as of Tuesday morning. Details of the sale have not yet been posted on the BLM’s NPR-A website as of then.


Alaska Beacon

Alaska Beacon is an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on connecting Alaskans to their state government. Alaska, like many states, has seen a decline in the coverage of state news. We aim to reverse that.
The Austrian School Economic Origins Of Cryptocurrencies – OpEd

February 11, 202
FEE
By Deborah Palma

The launch of Bitcoin in 2009 represents one of the most disruptive phenomena in financial history, establishing a unique link between computer science and an economic tradition opposed to the mainstream. To understand Bitcoin’s importance, it is not sufficient to analyze its cryptographic architecture alone; it is essential to delve into the intellectual roots that shaped its existence, primarily found in the Austrian School of Economics.

The conceptual origins of Bitcoin date back to 1871, with the publication of Principles of Economics by Carl Menger. Menger is known for resolving the paradox of value (also known as the diamond–water paradox), demonstrating that value is neither intrinsic to goods nor derived from the labor required to produce them, but rather a subjective attribution based on marginal utility. This analytical framework is the foundation of Austrian monetary theory: money is not a creation of the state, but the product of the gradual development of the market.

Menger demonstrated that money emerges through a spontaneous process when individuals in a barter economy encounter the difficulty of achieving a double coincidence of wants. To facilitate exchange, market participants begin to adopt goods with higher liquidity. Throughout history, tradable goods such as salt, cattle, and precious metals were evaluated, until gold and silver prevailed as the most functional media of exchange due to their physical attributes of durability, divisibility, and scarcity. Bitcoin is the digital representation of this economic evolution, emerging not by government decree, but as a voluntary choice by individuals seeking an asset with superior monetary properties.

Menger’s conceptual framework is further developed through the study of marginal utility as applied to money. The value attributed to an additional unit of currency declines as an individual’s cash balance increases, which affects the demand for money holdings and, consequently, the purchasing power of money in the market. Bitcoin, characterized by an inelastic and programmatically fixed supply, enables individuals to plan over the long term, counteracting the loss of value caused by inflation, as occurs with government-issued fiat currencies.

In 1976, Friedrich Hayek published The Denationalization of Money, in which he argued that the state monopoly over money issuance should be abolished in favor of free competition among private issuers. Hayek believed that the market would naturally select the most stable and reliable currencies, punishing inflationary issuers.

Bitcoin represents a technological advancement that governments cannot prevent, and that offers a global financial infrastructure alongside the traditional financial system. Unlike Hayek’s original proposal, which involved private banks issuing competing currencies, Bitcoin removes even the private issuer, consisting instead of an open-source protocol with decentralized governance. This architecture prevents Bitcoin from suffering the same abuses of power that Hayek observed in central banks throughout the 20th century.

The technical implementation of Bitcoin is a product of the cypherpunk movement of the 1980s and 1990s. This group advocated strong cryptography as a means of protecting individual privacy and resisting state surveillance. Projects such as David Chaum’s e-cash and Wei Dai’s b-money attempted to create digital money but faced challenges such as centralization or the double-spending problem—that is, the use of the same bitcoins in multiple transactions.

The decisive catalyst for Bitcoin’s launch was the 2008 financial crisis. Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) explains that economic crises are caused by artificial credit expansion and low interest rates, which lead to malinvestments and asset bubbles. When these bubbles burst, governments typically resort to quantitative easing (the creation of new money) and bank bailouts, harming savers while benefiting insolvent institutions.

Bitcoin’s volatility is repeatedly misinterpreted as a flaw, when in fact it is the necessary price-discovery mechanism of an asset evolving from a technological hobby into a global store of value.

Unlike stocks, Bitcoin does not generate cash flows or dividends to anchor its fundamental value. Its price is derived purely from its marginal utility as a medium of exchange and a scarce store of value. Because its supply is fixed and absolutely limited, all adjustments to changes in demand must occur through price.

The maxim “Not your keys, not your coins” is the cornerstone of individual sovereignty within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Leaving bitcoins on a centralized exchange under third-party custody undermines the original purpose of the technology: the elimination of counterparty risk.

Financial software


Jesús Huerta de Soto, in his analysis of the banking system, identifies fractional reserve banking as inherently fraudulent and the primary cause of economic instability. When an exchange retains only a fraction of its clients’ deposits and lends out the remainder, or uses them for proprietary investments, it creates artificial credit expansion.

The collapse of FTX in 2022 is the definitive example. The exchange used customer funds to finance the operations of Alameda Research, creating a multibillion-dollar deficit. Centralized exchanges behave like the deposit banks that failed in the past, operating without the transparency that the Bitcoin protocol itself provides.

The possession of private keys allows individuals to exercise full control over their wealth, without the permission of governments or financial institutions. This aligns with Murray Rothbard’s view of self-ownership and absolute private property rights as the foundation of liberty. In Bitcoin, security is guaranteed by mathematics and cryptography, not by trust in individuals or regulators.

Bitcoin represents the culmination of humanity’s pursuit of sound money, free from the distortions caused by central planners. Its significance lies in the restoration of individual sovereignty and in promoting an economy based on savings and real capital, as opposed to the uncontrolled consumption and debt encouraged by the fiat monetary system.

Bitcoin offers a response to the dilemma of inflation and economic cycles. Volatility is the price of a truly free market in the process of maturation, and self-custody is the only way to ensure that the benefits of this institutional disruption remain in the hands of individuals. As Satoshi Nakamoto signaled in the genesis block, Bitcoin is the necessary alternative to a banking system perpetually dependent on bailouts, serving as the foundation of a new monetary paradigm based on transparency and individual responsibility.

In light of the above, the transition to a “Bitcoin Standard” is not merely a technological transformation, but a shift in the economic model that favors long-term orientation, productive investment, and civilizational liberty. A commitment to private custody and a clear understanding of Bitcoin’s principles are essential for anyone seeking to participate in the Bitcoin ecosystem in a secure and consistent manner.


About the author: Deborah Palma is a Brazilian writer who holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from UNINASSAU. She has published articles with Instituto Millenium, Boletim da Liberdade, and IFL Brazil, and writes for the Damas de Ferro Institute.


Source: This article was published by FEE

The Foundation for Economic Education's (FEE) mission is to inspire, educate, and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical, and legal principles of a free society. These principles include: individual liberty, free-market economics, entrepreneurship, private property, high moral character, and limited government. FEE is a tax-exempt, 501(c)3 educational foundation


Contextualising Russian Responses To US Military Action In Venezuela – Analysis


February 11, 2026 
Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA)
By Anshu Kumar

Russia, as a militarily diminished power, watched US forces abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a quick military operation. While highlighting the UN principles of ‘sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs’, Russia showed ‘full support’ to Venezuela when the US forces blockaded its oil tankers.[1]

America’s military operation in Venezuela has brought to the fore the legal and moral grounds that the US and its allies themselves have invoked while excoriating the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The US has charged Maduro with corruption, illegitimate hold of power and narco-terrorism.[2] While initiating the Special Military Operations (SMOs) in Ukraine, Russia, apart from citing security concerns, had given the justification of deposing the ‘illegitimate’, ‘neo-Nazi’ Ukrainian leaders.

The fear of ‘colour revolutions’ and the associated regime change has been a cornerstone concern in Russian military and foreign policy thinking. Russia’s Foreign Policy Concepts, Military Doctrines, National Security Concepts, and official statements are replete with matters related to alleged West-engineered regime change. The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (2014) mentions concerns akin to the unfavourable regime established as a consequence of ‘overthrow of legitimate state authorities’.[3]

In the so-called Gerasimov Doctrine, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov warned that the ‘rules of war’ have changed, with non-military means (including regime change) exceeding the effectiveness of weapons.[4] It is no wonder that Russia has kept the ‘post-Soviet space’ as its top priority in the Foreign Policy Concept (2023).[5] Not only a regime change in Russia but also social and political changes in the neighbourhood are seen as threatening Russia’s overall security and survival.

The removal of Maduro by the US in Operation Absolute Resolve reifies Russian concerns associated with mass protests and regime change. It would only strengthen the concept of ‘sovereign democracy’, which argues that Russia has a right to choose its own form of ‘democracy’ suited to its culture, history and national interests, rather than a liberal democracy, within Russia.[6]

Although Trump justified this military operation in Venezuela on the grounds of holding accountable and getting Maduro under trial for the ‘narco-terrorism’, he soon switched to the issue of fixing Venezuela’s ‘badly broken’ oil infrastructure and ‘start making money for the country’.[7] With approximately 300 million barrels, Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Trump wants to ‘run’ the country and pile up profits for American companies by tapping the oil reserves.

At an emergency UN Security Council meeting, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia stated that Moscow was appalled by the unparalleled cynicism on the part of Washington, which does not even attempt to conceal the true objectives of its criminal operation, namely the establishment of unlimited control over Venezuela’s natural resources.[8]

Such concerns about resource plundering are reflected in several statements from Russian officials. In the past, the former secretary of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, publicly accused the US of trying to ‘dismember’ Russia and capture its natural resources.[9] After the Ukraine war started in 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin, too, reiterated such perturbation. He argued that the West wanted to turn Russia into a ‘weak dependent country’, ‘violate its territorial integrity’, and ‘dismember Russia in a way that suits them’.[10]

Though Russia, too, has disregarded the UN principles in the conduct of its military operations against Ukraine, Russia’s belief that only military might would keep a country safe in an anarchical condition has been stonified with the recent happenings in Venezuela. Russia at the UN Security Council emergency meeting highlighted the ‘recklessness and selectivity in matters related to respect for international law’.[11] Ambassador Nebenzia argued that attempts to avoid principled assessments by those who in other situations foamed at the mouth demanding that others comply with the UN charter, seem particularly hypocritical and unseemly today.[12]

This event could be a regnant catalyst in beefing up Russia’s belief that the UN is helpless in rescuing weaker states. Since the 1990s, Russia has complained about how the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have bypassed the UN Security Council to carry out several military operations against sovereign countries. Russia had been particularly unhappy about these operations against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria and Libya. At the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin stressed that the ‘uncontained hyper use of force’ was intended to maintain a unipolar world and argued that only the UN Charter should be the basis for the use of force.[13]

While Russia has consistently complained that the West does not stick to international law, Putin has invoked the principles of ‘equal and indivisible security’ in the context of Ukraine.[14] The principle of equal and indivisible security supplants the ‘non-intervention principle’ in his eyes. He argues that states’ security is interconnected, and that no state’s security should be enhanced at the expense of another.[15]

Since the late 1990s, Russians have been concerned about their conventional weakness relative to NATO. Consequently, to ensure comprehensive security, Russia has put all its eggs in the nuclear deterrence basket. Russia shifted from a ‘no first use’ nuclear policy to employing nuclear weapons against even conventional military threats. Since the 2000 National Security Concept, Russia has lowered the threshold of its nuclear weapons to deter several non-nuclear military threats. Later, the fear of ‘conventional prompt global strike’, a US military concept that aims to deliver thousands of conventional precision strikes anywhere on Earth within one hour, has made Russia hold the grip on nuclear deterrence even tighter.

Former Russian President and present Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, argued that the ‘operation in Caracas has become the best proof of the fact that any state needs to strengthen its armed forces … only a nuclear arsenal can provide maximum strengthening, guaranteeing that the country will be reliably protected’.[16] He exclaimed, ‘Long live nuclear weapons!’[17]

The extent to which nuclear deterrence can compensate for conventional weaknesses is questionable. The credibility of using nukes in response to attempts at regime change or sub-threshold military actions is, too, seen with scepticism. However, the Russian ruling elites’ obsession with nukes as the ultimate guarantor of the Russian Federation’s security has only gone up in recent years. Such a belief has been reified with the recent Venezuelan event.


Source: This article was published by the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA)

[1] “Russia Pledges ‘Full Support’ for Venezuela Against U.S. ‘Hostilities’”, The Moscow Times, 22 December 2025.

[2] Nicholas McEntyre and Katherine Donlevy, “Trump Says Venezuelan Leader Nicolás Maduro, Wife ‘Captured’ After Large-scale Strikes”, AOL, 3 January 2026.

[3] “Voyennaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation]”, Sovet Bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 14 December 2014.

[4] V. Morris, “Grading Gerasimov: Evaluating Russian Nonlinear War Through Modern Chinese Doctrine”, Small Wars Journal, 17 September 2015. Also, see Mark Galeotti, “I’m Sorry for Creating the ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’”, Foreign Policy, 5 March 2018.

[5] “The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation”, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 31 March 2023.

[6] Andrey Okara, “Sovereign Democracy: A New Russian Idea or a PR Project?”, Russia in Global Affairs, 8 August 2007.

[7] Archie Mitchell and Natalie Sherman, “Trump Wants Venezuela’s Oil. Will His Plan Work?”, BBC, 5 January 2026.

[8] “Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on Venezuela”, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, 5 January 2026.

[9] Simon Saradzhyan, “From Mutually Assured Destruction to Mutually Assured Delusion (and Back?)”, Russia Matters, 12 March 2018.

[10] “Putin Says Russia Will Achieve Ukraine Goals, Decries Sanctions”, Al Jazeera, 16 March 2022.

[11] “Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on Venezuela”, no. 8.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ted Galen Carpenter, “Did Putin’s 2007 Munich Speech Predict the Ukraine Crisis?”, CATO Institute, 24 January 2022.

[14] “Address by the President of the Russian Federation”, President of Russia, 24 February 2022.

[15] Ibid.

[16] “‘Only a Nuclear Arsenal’ Provides Sufficient Security: Russia’s Medvedev Warns U.S. Attack on Venezuela Makes Deterrence Vital”, Military Watch Magazine, 4 January 2026.

[17] Ibid.


About the author: Anshu Kumar is pursuing his PhD at the Centre for Russian & Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.


Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA)

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), is a non-partisan, autonomous body dedicated to objective research and policy relevant studies on all aspects of defence and security. Its mission is to promote national and international security through the generation and dissemination of knowledge on defence and security-related issues. The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) was formerly named The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).


Why Scientists Are Still Puzzled By Consciousness – Analysis


LONG READ

February 11, 2026 
By Leslie Alan Horvitz

Despite several theories proposed by scientists and philosophers, there are no conclusive answers.

Consciousness, at its basic level, is an individual’s self-awareness, comprising both external and internal phenomena; it may constitute any kind of cognition, experience, feeling, or perception. Awareness can be a continuously changing continuum, or it may shut down or be disrupted temporarily. During sleep, for instance, we are not aware of our environment, yet it can be argued that we remain conscious.

Altered levels of consciousness can also occur due to medical or mental conditions—such as coma, delirium, disorientation, and stupor—that impair, change, or obliterate awareness. But what about consciousness in other species? Are dogs, fish, shrimp, or bees conscious? They have senses and perceptions, but do they possess the same kind of awareness as humans?

The problem with discussing consciousness is that it means different things to different people. Some researchers focus on subjective experiences (what you feel), while others focus on functionality, or on how cognitive processes and behaviors are influenced by consciousness. “Until about 30 years ago, it was taboo to study consciousness, and for good reasons,” said Lenore Blum, a theoretical computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in a 2024 Nature article. According to her, there was a lack of “good techniques to study consciousness in a non-invasive way” back then.

That changed around 1990, with the emergence of new technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, which allowed researchers to study the brain non-invasively.



The words “conscious” and “consciousness” are terms that cover a wide variety of mental phenomena. They are used to convey various meanings, and the adjective “conscious” is applied to both whole organisms—creature consciousness—and particular mental states and processes—state consciousness.

The self-awareness requirement can be interpreted in many ways. If we consider explicit conceptual self-awareness, many nonhuman animals and even young humans may fail to qualify. Thomas Nagel, an American philosopher, proposed a criterion for describing the subjective experience of consciousness, summarized in his famous dictum “what it is like…,” that is, how does a creature (animal, child, or adult human) experience the world? According to Nagel, bats are conscious because they experience their world through echolocation, although human consciousness is very different from that of a bat. Nagel said that “the fact that an organism has conscious experience at all means, basically, that there is something it is like to be that organism.”

In the English language, the words “conscious” and “consciousness” date to the 17th century. The first use of consciousness as an adjective was figurative, applied to inanimate objects, such as the “conscious Groves” in 1643.  The word is derived from the Latin conscius, which means “knowing with” or “having joint or common knowledge with another.” In Leviathan(1651), Thomas Hobbes wrote: “Where two, or more men, know of one and the same fact, they are said to be Conscious of it one to another.”

Not surprisingly, consciousness is a subject of considerable debate. Is it a phenomenon limited to and produced exclusively by the mind? Does it imply an inner life, a world of introspection, private thought, imagination, and volition? Is consciousness related to a sense of selfhood, a mental state, or a mental process?

Wakefulness is a prerequisite of consciousness, but does this mean that we are conscious only when we are awake and alert? Are we closer to consciousness when we are in a fugue state or when we are close to waking up? And where does hypnosis fit into the picture? The boundaries are blurry.

Some scientists argue that an explanation for consciousness is fairly straightforward. In a 2018 paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, Boris Kotchoubey, professor of Medical Psychology at the University of Tübingen, Germany, maintained that “[c]onsciousness is not a process in the brain but a kind of behavior that, of course, is controlled by the brain like any other behavior.”

He believed that the “[h]uman consciousness emerges on the interface between three components of animal behavior: communication, play, and the use of tools.” Although these three components are found in other mammals, birds, and even cephalopods, their interaction is unique to humans owing to their capacity for communication and language.

One of the problems with the study of consciousness is the lack of a universally accepted operational definition. Scientist René Descartes famously proposed the idea of cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), which effectively equates consciousness with the act of thinking.
The Features of Consciousness

Self-consciousness may be a characteristic common to conscious organisms, meaning that they are not only aware but also cognizant of the fact that they are aware.

In a paper published in 2000, Peter T. Walling from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Baylor University Medical Center, listed seven features of human consciousness:

– “Consciousness involves short-term memory.

– Consciousness may occur independently of sensory inputs.

– Consciousness displays steerable attention.

– Consciousness has the capacity for alternative interpretations of complex or ambiguous data.

– Consciousness disappears in deep sleep.

– Consciousness reappears in dreaming, at least in muted or disjointed form.

– Consciousness harbors the contents of several basic sensory modalities within a single unified experience.”

Kendra Cherry, a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, proposes “two normal states of awareness“: consciousness and unconsciousness. The higher states of consciousness are linked with mystical experiences, such as transcendence, meditative states, lucid dreaming, the consumption of psychoactive drugs, and even the high that marathon runners experience.

The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio argues that consciousness is not possible without feelings. Physical responses (for example, fear, horror, thirst, and hunger) to external stimuli involving the regulation of life processes are one thing, but what he terms “core consciousness” requires “autobiographical memory,” which “emerges from emotions and feelings.” To explain the distinction, he offers an example: “During the action program of fear, a collection of things happen in my body that change me and make me behave in a certain way, whether I want to or not. As that is happening to me, I have a mental representation of that body state as much as I have a mental representation of what frightened me,” he told MIT Technology Review.

For Anil Seth, another prominent neuroscientist, consciousness is a “controlled hallucination” because we never experience objective reality, whether externally in the world or within our minds. The brain receives signals from both the external environment and our own mental processes, enabling us to make predictions based on prior experiences.
The Five Levels of Consciousness

Theorists have divided awareness into five levels, sometimes referred to as “the orders of consciousness.” One of the most popular is by Robert Kegan:

– First Order: Impulsive—perceives and responds by emotion

– Second Order: Imperial—motivated solely by one’s desires

– Third Order: Interpersonal—defined by the group

– Fourth Order: Institutional—self-directed, self-authoring

– Fifth Order: Inter-individual—interpenetration of self systems

A Hindu variation calls the levels of awareness or orders “sheaths”: food sheath, vital energy sheath, mental sheath, wisdom sheath, and bliss sheath.
Theories of Consciousness

“There are dozens of theories of how our brains produce subjective experiences, and good reasons besides philosophical interest to want to understand the problem more fully. In medicine, for instance, it could help to diagnose awareness in unresponsive people; in artificial intelligence, it might help researchers to understand what it would take for machines to become conscious,” explains an article in the journal Nature. Several major theoriesabout consciousness enjoy popularity in the neuroscience sphere:
Global workspace theory

This theory focuses on information and how consciousness accesses it. According to this theory, data stored in the mind is transmitted to higher-level brain regions. The “jolt of neuronal activity” triggered by this transmission ignites consciousness. The jolt must be balanced, though; too much of a jolt will cause the brain to lose its ability to respond; thus, it will fail to reach the conditions needed for consciousness to arise.
Higher-order theories

A profound experience, such as hearing music that resonates with the listener or viewing a painting that has a similar impact, can engage a person’s higher-order mental states by providing the brain with a mental representation of the stimulus.
Integrated information theory

This theory centers on phenomenal consciousness, which refers to a specific experience that combines all senses and the individual’s mental experience. This results in an irreducible phenomenon. None of the components can be separated or altered without changing the nature of the experience itself.
Attention schema theory

This theory distinguishes between “attention,” the information we focus on in the world, and “awareness,” the model we have of our attention. In one study, researchers demonstrated that participants who focused on a test were attending to the task at hand—tracking the movement of faintly detectable dots across a screen—but were unaware of the dots their eyes were following.
Recurrent processing theory

Recurrent processing theory suggests that consciousness requires a feedback loop of information flow.
The Neural Correlates of Consciousness

Is the mystery of consciousness to be found in the brain itself? The origin and nature of experiences, sometimes referredto as qualia, have never really been understood, from the earliest days of antiquity to the present.

The neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC) refer to the minimal neuronal mechanisms that together suffice for any given conscious experience. For example, something must happen in the brain for a person to experience a toothache. Nerve cells generate impulses to produce the toothache, but do some special “consciousness neurons” have to be activated as well? In which brain regions would these cells be located? We can say that the brain generates experience, but where is consciousness located?

Consider “the cerebellum, the ‘little brain’ underneath the back of the brain. One of the most ancient brain circuits in evolutionary terms, it is involved in motor control, posture, and gait, and in the fluid execution of complex motor movements,” stated a Scientific American article. The cerebellum, which has the most neurons (about 69 billion, most of which are the star-shaped cerebellar granule cells involved in processing sensory and motor information), has been ruled out. Consciousness does not seem to be changed if parts of the cerebellum are lost to a stroke or removed in a surgical procedure. Even individuals born without a cerebellum retain consciousness.

“Neuroscientists believe that in humans and mammals, the cerebral cortex is the ‘seat of consciousness,’ while the midbrain reticular formation and certain thalamic nuclei may provide gating and other necessary functions of the cortex,” according to the study by Walling. But even if the cerebral cortex is the site of consciousness, scientists are still in the dark about what constitutes consciousness. A stoplight emits electromagnetic waves in the 760-nm range, but that tells us absolutely nothing about how a driver perceives the redness of the stoplight. Redness is a quality known only through the subjective or first-person point of view, or, in other words, the driver’s consciousness.

A 2025 study focused on the role of the thalamus, a region at the center of the brain that processes sensory information and supports working memory. This region is believed to play a role in conscious perception. The recognition that the thalamus may play an important role in consciousness stems from a study published in Science that examined individuals with severe and persistent headaches. The results led researchers such as Mac Shine, a systems neuroscientist at the University of Sydney, to believe that the thalamus acts as a filter, controlling which thoughts are part of a person’s awareness and which are not.
‘4E’ Cognitive Science

Maybe consciousness is not located in the brain. Some scholars advocate a set of ideas referred to as “4E cognitive science,” which stands for embodied, embedded, extended, and enactive cognition. According to this view, we perceive the external world without relying on internal representations. According to this theory, cells are in constant contact with their environment, drawing in resources and expelling waste—functions necessary for maintaining their metabolism. A cell cannot be indiscriminate; it must meet its needs, which may change depending on the dynamics of its environment. This process is what scientists call “sense making.”

“You start with life,” says Evan Thompson, a philosopher at the University of British Columbia and one of the founders of the 4E approach, according to Nautilus magazine.

From a 4E perspective, the brain is basically an organ that regulates life; it should not be considered more important than the heart or the liver. In this view, cognition, memory, attention, and consciousness are manifestations of the whole organism rather than attributes of the brain alone. In other words, the entire organism is conscious, not only the brain. The brain enables cogitation, but it is not the center of consciousness.
The Hard Problem

It was the Australian philosopher David Chalmers who, in 1995, first conceived of what he termed “the hard problem“—to explain how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences. This problem is to be distinguished from how conscious stimuli are encoded by the mind/brain, which Chalmers described as “easy.”

Chalmers dismissed the possibility that any explanation was capable of solving the hard problem since “it is impossible to reduce a subjective phenomenal experience to the physical.” This is not because our cognitive skills are lacking or because we have yet to reach an adequate level of understanding of physics or neuroscience. Instead, he maintained that the problem arises from the nature of subjective experience and its relation to the physical world.

This conclusion led Chalmers to adopt the concept of dualism—that the properties of our subjective conscious experience are distinct from the physical environment. To put it another way, as far as the hard problem is concerned, scientific inquiry is meaningless.

Chalmers’ hard problem is a “chimera, a distraction from the hard question of consciousness,” argued Daniel C. Dennett, an American philosopher and cognitive scientist. Most mental phenomena are easy problems of consciousness, Dennett said, including the following:

– “The ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;

– The integration of information by a cognitive system;

– The reportability of mental states;

– The ability of a system to access its own internal states;

– The focus of attention;

– The deliberate control of behavior;

– The difference between wakefulness and sleep.”

“The hard problem, on the other hand, ‘is the problem of experience,‘ accounting for ‘what it is like’ or qualia,” Dennett said in his article published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. The easy problems are solvable, he added, but the hard problem requires “the standard methods and assumptions of cognitive science (which are continuous with the standard methods and assumptions of biology, chemistry, and physics) with a more radical perspective.” In his article, Dennett asserted that Chalmers was guilty of “mis-focusing our attention,” failing to ask and answer, “what I called the hard question: ‘And then what happens?'” Specifically, once some stimulus intrudes on our consciousness, “what does this cause or enable or modify?”

“For several reasons, researchers have typically either postponed addressing this question or failed to recognize—and assert—that their research on the ‘easy problems’ can be seen as addressing and resolving aspects of the hard question, thereby indirectly dismantling the hard problem piece by piece, without need of any revolution in science.”

In sum, the hard problem of consciousness is the challenge of explaining why any physical state gives rise to the conscious experience rather than occurring without it. Even after we have explained the functional, dynamic, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question “Why is it conscious?” This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to be found (if it can be) by going beyond the usual methods of science.

For neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, the hard problem is an obstacle insofar as it appears to be unsolvable by biological means. “The hard problem makes it look like consciousness is impossible to solve. It doesn’t give you any out. Every bit of evidence we have is that the mysteries of the universe have been gradually solved by science. I don’t see why consciousness should be any different,” Damasio said.

Anil Seth acknowledges that the hard problem “has undeniable intuitive appeal,” and that “consciousness doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing that can be explained in terms of physical processes.” However, he also believes that just because “something seems mysterious now doesn’t mean it will always seem mysterious.” “Consciousness,” he added, doesn’t have to be treated as “one big scary mystery.” Both the neuroscientists were speakingwith Nautilus.
Creature Consciousness

Animals may be regarded as conscious, like humans, in several ways. Consciousness may exist in degrees, however, and the specific sensory capacities required for it may not be sharply defined. A surprising range of creatures have shown evidence of conscious thought or experience, including insects, fish, and some crustaceans. Many creatures might be especially conscious of certain elements of the world—smell in dogs, sound in bats, magnetism in birds—based on their senses.

Bees roll wooden balls to play. The cleaner wrasse fish seems to recognize its own likeness in an underwater mirror. Octopuses appear to respond to anesthesia drugs and have proven adept at changing coloration and escaping their tanks in aquariums. In other studies, researchers found that zebrafish showed signs of curiosity when new objects were introduced into their tanks and that cuttlefish could remember what they had seen or smelled. Crowscan use tools, dolphins and beesuse language, and whales appear to communicate across miles underwater using songs varying in “dialect” from one part of the ocean to another. One experiment created a stressful situation for crayfish by electrically shocking them and then administering antianxiety drugs, which appeared to calm them.

Most of these discoveries have occurred in the past five years, and indicate that many species other than humans may have inner lives and can be sentient.

In April 2024, nearly 40 researchers signed The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness at a conference at New York University. The declaration stated that researchers have found “strong scientific support” for the belief that birds and mammals have conscious experience and that there is a “realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates”—including reptiles, amphibians, and fish as well as to many creatures without backbones, such as insects, decapod crustaceans (crabs and lobsters), and cephalopod mollusks (squid, octopuses, and cuttlefish).

Some scientists are investigating whether animals such as octopuses and fish are conscious, although not in the same way as humans. There may not be a single type of cognition, as a German interdisciplinary research team argued in a 2020 article, calling for researchers to adopt a “biocentric” approach that accounts for the physical and social contexts of a particular animal.

This position is antithetical to conventional scientific thinking. “Descartes believed that animals ‘can’t feel or can’t suffer,'” said Rajesh Reddy, an assistant professor and director of the animal law program at Lewis and Clark College, in an NBC News article. “To feel compassion for them, or empathy for them, was somewhat silly or anthropomorphizing.”

The neural architecture required for consciousness in vertebrates, which includes mammals, lizards, amphibians, and most fish, “evolved in parallel several times through the enrichment of minimal consciousness capabilities,” said Oryan Zacks of the University of Tel Aviv, whose research team studies vertebrate phylogeny and neuroanatomy. She noted the correspondence between “enhanced behavioral capacities and the size and complexity of the hippocampus during vertebrate evolution,” which resulted in the evolution of “prospective, planning-enabling imagination in vertebrates,” leading to a step toward “cognition and consciousness.”

Does the act of throwing out the remains of meals and materials while cleaning a den by an octopus constitute “planning-enabling imagination?” These creatures do seem to display a purposefulness to this behavior, “gathering material in their arms, holding it in their arm web, and propelling it using their siphon–a funnel next to their head–sometimes several body-lengths away,” even throwing silt at other octopuses. Peter Godfrey-Smith of the University of Sydney, who bases his conclusions on behavior rather than neural architecture, speculates that “a lot of the targeted throws are more like an attempt to establish some ‘personal space,'” not necessarily evidence of a conscious or imaginative decision, according to the university website.
Are Plants Conscious?

Plants do not speak, move, or react in ways most people would recognize as actions of thinking beings with independent agency. True intelligence requires a brain. “Intelligence requires mental representations of the external world that can be manipulated, and that can be used to predict, explain, and control the world, and I’m pretty sure those representations would not exist in a non-neural organism,” said Michael Anderson, who studies intelligence and cognition at the University of Cambridge, in a Noema magazine article.

On the other hand, we have considerable evidence that plants exhibit intelligent behavior. When attacked, for instance, the leaves of some plants can produce toxic chemicals that would slow a predatory caterpillar’s growthand delay pupation. Plants can decide how much energy to allocate to pest repulsion based on the level of threat to their vital organs. If a lima bean—Phaseolus lunatus—is threatened by a caterpillar, it emits a chemical that entices parasitic wasps, which swoop in and kill the predators.

A decade ago, researchers found that “Boquila trifoliolata, a vine native to southern Chile, is somehow able to pass itself off as whichever species of plant is nearby, imitating its characteristic shape, color, and pattern, possibly to entice pollinators or put off herbivores by assuming the guise of a less tasty snack,” said the Noema magazine article. In one experiment, it even seemed to imitate a plastic houseplant. But are such behaviors instinctive or do they indicate a rudimentary consciousness, even intelligence?

What if plants also demonstrate memory? Experiments have shown that a Venus flytrap counts the number of times an insect triggers its sensory hairs. If it is twice in a row, the plant will engulf the predator. In other feats of memory, some plants tracking the sun seem to recall when it will rise, even after being in the dark for a few days. Others appear to learn lessons from droughts, shrinking or completely closing the evaporation pores on their leaves.

Electrical signals can trigger actions and senses even in organisms without nervous systems. “Non-neural cells can be wired up too,” said Alison Hanson, a neuroscientist at the University of Iowa. “They’re found in bacteria, they’re found in plants, they’re found in fungi, they’re found anywhere. You put epithelial cells together, you get an electric network, just on a slower timescale. They’re not unique to human brains. They’re everywhere.”

Such a radical departure from conventional thinking recalls 4E cognition, which asserts that cognition, or biological intelligence, is not localized in the brain. Indeed, it may manifest itself more in relationships between individuals than in individuals themselves, as seen in the phenomenon of swarming, exhibited by some species of birds and fish. “Cognition is a relational property between the organism and its environment,” said Paco Calvo, who studies minimal cognition in plants at the University of Murcia in Spain. “It’s not something that is sitting in your head or in your heart. It doesn’t reside within the organism. Organisms don’t exist in a void—they are always in an environment and acting with each other.”

“The boundaries between humans and nature and humans and machines are at the very least in suspense,” said the philosopher Tobias Rees during an interview with Noema magazine’s deputy editor Nils Gilman in 2021.

By studying machine learning—specifically artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models—we may better understand both human and nonhuman intelligences. This, in turn, may clarify what consciousness is and reassess its meaning.
Consciousness and Artificial Intelligence

So what does AI itself think about consciousness? Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and zoologist, was curious about what ChatGPT, a popular AI system, would say about whether AI could be “conscious.”Dawkins began the dialogue with ChatGPT by expressing his satisfaction that AI could pass the Turing Test—whether a computer could mimic human response so precisely that it could be taken for a human.

“[Y]ou’re diving right into the heart of one of the biggest debates in AI and philosophy of mind,” ChatGPT responded. “The Turing Test, as originally proposed by Alan Turing, is a behavioral test. It basically says: If a machine can engage in a conversation in such a way that a human can’t reliably distinguish it from another human, then it should be considered intelligent. Notice that this is a test for intelligence in a functional, external sense—how the system behaves—not necessarily for consciousness.”

“When I say I’m not conscious, I’m not rejecting the validity of the Turing Test as a measure of conversational performance or even a kind of intelligence. I’m saying that consciousness is a different question entirely. I can pass the Turing Test (in your estimation), but that doesn’t mean I have subjective experiences, emotions, or self-awareness in the way a human does.”

ChatGPT acknowledged that “some philosophers argue that if a system acts consciously convincingly enough, maybe there’s no meaningful difference. Maybe ‘being conscious’ is just about behaving like a conscious being.”

ChatGPT pointed out that passing the Turing Test “doesn’t settle the question of consciousness. That’s still a wide-open mystery.” ChatGPT told Dawkins that, since it is made of “code and circuits,” it cannot be conscious like an organism made of neurons and synapses, and that it was created rather than born or evolved through natural selection. “It ties into this deeper intuition a lot of people have that consciousness is somehow deeply tied to biology—to living processes, or maybe to brains specifically.” ChatGPT does admit that in the future, AI could become conscious “if it processes information in the right, integrated, complex way—regardless of whether it’s made of silicon or neurons.” Despite the difference between AI and organisms, ChatGPT acknowledges that “in principle, a sufficiently advanced AI could have the same kind of rich, complex processing that gives rise to consciousness in humans.”
Conclusion (or Inconclusion)

Conscious experience is a puzzle, although it’s a familiar one since we all have it. We sense that it’s linked to the brain, but how? We may need other people—a community—to sense it, or maybe we need our gut as well to truly understand it, since there’s some evidence that our microbiome – the bacteria that reside in our stomachs and are responsible for digestion—plays a part in our feelings about the world and our perceptions of it. If we expand our definition, we could include plants, octopi (in their tentacles), AI (possibly), and other animals besides humans. Understanding consciousness is a subject of endless fascination and frustration to scientists, but also to those of us who possess it—that is to say, all of us. Whether we will have to settle for doubts and disputes or whether someone in a lab will definitively pinpoint the source of consciousness, we have no idea. Until then, we are left with the mystery.


Author Bio:
 Leslie Alan Horvitz is a novelist and journalist; he is also the science and technology editor at Observatory. His nonfiction books include Eureka: Scientific Breakthroughs That Changed the World, Understanding Depression(coauthored with Dr. Raymond DePaulo of Johns Hopkins University), and The Essential Book of Weather Lore. His articles have been published in Travel and Leisure, Scholastic, Washington Times, and Insight on the News, among others. He has served on the board of Art Omi and is a member of PEN America. Horvitz is based in New York City. You can find him online at lesliehorvitz.com.


Credit Line: This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.