Anthropocentrism: Inevitable, Taxonomizable, Transformable

Abstract

Examining consciousness in AI systems and non-human animals faces a fundamental methodological problem: anthropocentrism inevitably shapes research yet may systematically distort findings. I demonstrate that anthropocentrism is epistemologically inescapable because we cannot escape our human cognitive apparatus, but that it can be taxonomized into distinct forms with opposing effects. Pernicious anthropocentrism treats human-specific traits as definitional requirements for consciousness, systematically excluding non-human-like implementations. Benign anthropocentrism employs human experience as a provisional reference point while remaining open to alternative manifestations. I develop a four-principle framework that operationalizes benign anthropocentrism as a research methodology: perspectival transparency, evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism. This framework shifts consciousness research from binary classification ("Is X conscious?") to comparative analysis ("How does X's consciousness compare to Y's?"), enabling rigorous evaluation across radically different implementations. The methodology applies equally to diverse biological systems and artificial intelligence, providing essential tools for machine consciousness evaluation without privileging human-like traits or dismissing non-biological implementations.

Keywords: Anthropocentrism; Machine Consciousness; Animal Consciousness; Philosophy of Mind; Large Language Models

1. Introduction: The Perspectival Paradox in Consciousness Research

How can we study consciousness in other species and systems without unjustifiably projecting human attributes? This perspectival paradox lies at the heart of consciousness research. Our investigation necessarily begins with the human case—our first-person experiences and theoretical frameworks—yet relying exclusively on human parameters risks distorting consciousness in its diverse manifestations. Historically, human consciousness has served as the benchmark, but this anthropocentric framing has been increasingly challenged by scientific advances and evolving perspectives.

Scientific evidence increasingly challenges the assumption that human consciousness is the universal template for consciousness research. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (2012) announced scientific consensus that many non-human animals possess neurological substrates of conscious experience similar to our own. In 2021, a comprehensive U.K. government review concluded that certain invertebrates are likely sentient, leading to their inclusion in animal welfare laws (Birch et al., 2021).¹The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (2024) further urged recognition that consciousness extends to many other species and called for less anthropocentric research frameworks. These developments demonstrate both expanding recognition of consciousness in diverse systems and the enduring methodological challenge of studying it.

We face two problematic extremes: over-attributing consciousness to systems that lack it, and under-attributing consciousness to systems that possess it. This reflects what I call the perspectival paradox: we inevitably rely on human experience to understand consciousness, yet this very reliance threatens to distort our understanding of non-human consciousness. Anthropocentrism—viewing consciousness from a human-centred standpoint—lies at the heart of this paradox. In consciousness research, anthropocentrism is epistemically inescapable: we inevitably use human concepts, language, and experiences as our starting point. However, anthropocentrism takes crucially different forms. Sometimes it distorts understanding by blinding us to non-human realities; other times it provides a necessary foundation for inquiry when used reflectively. This paper develops the key distinction between anthropocentrism as pernicious distortion versus benign foundation.

This challenge has become particularly acute with recent advances in AI. Large language models and sophisticated AI systems exhibit behaviours that were once considered indicators of consciousness, creating potential confusion about their actual conscious status. While these systems are not conscious, their ability to demonstrate seemingly conscious-like behaviours raises complex questions about how we identify and evaluate consciousness. The same anthropocentric biases that have limited animal consciousness research now threaten to distort our understanding of potential machine consciousness, making the taxonomizing of anthropocentrism essential for the emerging field of artificial consciousness studies.

This paper advances three interconnected theses. First, anthropocentrism is inevitable in consciousness research: we cannot escape our human standpoint, as demonstrated by philosophical and cognitive-scientific analyses. Second, anthropocentrism is taxonomizable into fundamentally different forms: pernicious forms distort research methodologically, conceptually, and institutionally, while benign forms employ our perspective constructively as a provisional heuristic. Third, anthropocentrism is transformable—taxonomizing it allows us to turn the greatest obstacle in consciousness research into its most powerful instrument. This demolishes the fundamental limitation plaguing the field: instead of the impoverished binary "Is X conscious?" we unleash the revolutionary question "How does consciousness express itself in X?" This shift opens previously inaccessible domains of consciousness research—from invertebrate consciousness to machine consciousness—and provides researchers with systematic tools to study each on their own terms. The framework transforms consciousness science from a potentially human-centred discipline into a genuinely comparative field capable of rigorous cross-species and cross-system investigation.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 establishes anthropocentrism's inevitability through a "cognitive lens" thought experiment and standpoint epistemology. Section 3 analyses pernicious anthropocentrism in its explicit and implicit forms across methodological, conceptual, and institutional domains. Section 4 develops benign anthropocentrism through four principles that transform human perspective into a research tool and replace binary classifications with comparative questions.

2. Anthropocentrism as an Inescapable Perspective

Section 2 establishes that anthropocentrism serves as the inescapable perspective in consciousness research. Section 2.1 uses a "cognitive lens" thought experiment to reveal how our inescapable standpoint shapes what we can see and know. Section 2.2 connects this to standpoint epistemology, showing how acknowledging our situated perspective enables more rigorous, self-correcting science.

2.1 Anthropocentrism as the Cognitive Lens: A Thought Experiment

Imagine you are born wearing irremovable spectacles—not ordinary glasses, but cognitive lenses fused to your very perception and thought. These lenses don't just tint what you see; they fundamentally determine what counts as "seeing" at all. Every colour, sound, and concept you experience is filtered through them. You cannot remove these spectacles to glimpse the world without them, cannot step outside them to compare filtered and unfiltered reality, cannot even recognize their distortions because distortion itself is only meaningful from a perspective beyond the lenses. Most crucially, you cannot know what you are missing: the spectacles don't just shape your experience, they define the very boundaries of what can possibly appear to you as experience. They constitute not merely a tool for making sense of reality, but the inescapable foundation that determines what counts as reality in the first place.

In consciousness research, we wear exactly these kinds of irremovable spectacles—but ours are cognitive and epistemic ones, fundamental to our very capacity for inquiry. They are irremovable for the same fundamental reason: they constitute the very apparatus through which we investigate. Just as you cannot remove your spectacles, your eyes, or your entire visual system to see reality without any mediating apparatus whatsoever, we cannot step outside the totality of human cognitive architecture to study consciousness. All scientific observation, theoretical reasoning, and conceptual interpretation necessarily occur through distinctly human cognitive processes. Our neural architecture, perceptual systems, and conceptual frameworks fundamentally determine what can appear to us as conscious experience. Like the spectacle-wearer who cannot know what they are missing, we cannot access forms of consciousness that fall outside our complete cognitive apparatus. As Nagel (1989) argued, the ideal of a detached "view from nowhere" is unattainable—our knowledge is always from within a particular perspective. This epistemic constraint makes anthropocentrism not a methodological choice, but the unavoidable foundation upon which all consciousness research must be built.

Having established why anthropocentrism is epistemologically inescapable, how exactly does it operate when we actually conduct consciousness research? I argue that our irremovable cognitive spectacles generate three specific methodological constraints that form a cascading hierarchy, each building on the previous level.

Level 1 (Access): We are fundamentally confined within our own form of consciousness with no possibility of directly accessing other types—we can only infer, never directly verify, conscious states in others, making all consciousness research fundamentally inferential.

Level 2 (Investigation): This access limitation shapes how we conduct research—when studying consciousness in other beings, we inevitably apply human experiential structures as our interpretive framework, meaning our research paradigms and measurement tools inherently reflect human assumptions about what consciousness looks like.

Level 3 (Evaluation): This investigative bias crystallizes into evaluative standards—when theorizing about consciousness generally, we risk treating human experience as the universal template, effectively making human consciousness the implicit gold standard and systematically excluding non-human-like consciousness from our theoretical frameworks.

This creates a self-reinforcing anthropocentric cycle: our inability to access other consciousness (Level 1) forces human-based methods (Level 2), which generates human-privileging theories (Level 3), which then circle back to shape what we investigate and accept as evidence. Each level both emerges from and reinforces the others, creating an inescapable loop where our theoretical assumptions determine our research methods, and our methodological limitations constrain our theoretical possibilities. The result is a totalizing anthropocentric framework that determines what questions we ask, what evidence we recognize, and what counts as consciousness itself. Anthropocentrism thus becomes both our unavoidable starting point and our inevitable destination.

2.2 Standpoint Epistemology and the Human Perspective

Feminist epistemologists have shown that "situated knowledge" can yield more objective understanding when the situatedness is explicitly acknowledged (Code, 1991; Harding, 1996). Acknowledging one's bias can reduce its distorting effects through critical reflection—an idea called "strong objectivity" (Harding, 1996). In consciousness research, we cannot remove our human lens, but we can identify anthropocentric assumptions and attempt to correct for them. Anderson (2024) demonstrates how standpoint awareness improves science by revealing overlooked variables, identifying untested assumptions in research designs, and fostering critical examination of established methodologies. All three benefits apply directly to consciousness research, where human-centred assumptions often go unrecognized because they form the taken-for-granted background of inquiry.

Consider a concrete example. When observing a chimpanzee that modifies its behaviour based on a researcher's visual access to food, researchers commonly say "the chimpanzee knows that the researcher can see the banana." This description demonstrates Anderson's three problems: it assumes propositional knowledge that may be absent, reveals untested assumptions about human cognitive categories capturing non-human processes, and shows how methodologies uncritically employ human-centric terminology. The term "knows" smuggles in distinctly human cognitive architecture that may not exist in chimpanzee cognition. A standpoint-aware approach would instead describe observable behaviour: "the chimpanzee tracks the researcher's line of sight toward the banana."

One might worry that acknowledging our human standpoint forces relativism or scepticism: if we can't shed anthropocentrism, how can we know an octopus is conscious? The key is separating two claims. First, we must use human cognitive tools—that's unavoidable. Second, those tools can mislead—that's remediable. We once assumed only creatures with human-like brains could feel pain. Empirical research overturned this: fish possess nociceptors, learn to avoid painful stimuli, and exhibit stress responses when injured (Key, 2016; Sneddon et al., 2014a). We broadened our concept of pain to include functional markers, then tested whether fish met them, correcting anthropocentric bias without abandoning human-derived concepts altogether.

The same principle applies beyond Earth. SETI's focus on human-like signalling patterns could blind us to entirely different modes of alien communication (SETI Institute, 2025). Early attempts to find human-style syntax in animal calls made the same mistake, missing the intricate alarm codes of prairie dogs and symbolic waggle dances of bees. Anthropocentric criteria act like conceptual blinders: only by deliberately broadening our investigatory lens—seeking species-appropriate signals rather than mere reflections of ourselves—can we uncover the rich diversity of communication across the universe. Beginning from human experience need not result in theories that privilege human-like consciousness, provided we remain vigilant about our conceptual biases.

While our human standpoint is inescapable, we can discard the problematic assumptions it brings. A genuinely reflexive science requires acknowledging our lens and examining how it shapes our concepts and methods. This means using human-based models to formulate hypotheses while constantly testing and revising them to guard against unwarranted projection. We cannot discard our human lens, but we can learn to wield it judiciously. In the next section, we examine how unreflective anthropocentrism becomes pernicious before showing how to harness it constructively.

3. Pernicious Anthropocentrism

If anthropocentrism is inevitable, when does it become problematic? This section examines pernicious anthropocentrism—the kind that distorts consciousness research. I distinguish between explicit and implicit forms, showing how each systematically biases our understanding of non-human consciousness.

3.1 Defining Pernicious Anthropocentrism

Here is my definition of Pernicious Anthropocentrism:

Pernicious Anthropocentrism occurs when researchers impose human-specific benchmarks—such as verbal reportability, neocortical structure, or language-like syntax—as necessary or sufficient conditions for consciousness while committing two methodological mistakes. First, they engage in illegitimate generalization, treating species-specific human traits as universal criteria without independent theoretical justification. Second, they practice evidential dismissal, systematically devaluing evidence of consciousness that diverges from human norms rather than considering alternative forms.²

This creates systematic distortions: false negatives that deny consciousness in beings with non-human-like awareness, false positives that attribute consciousness based solely on human-like traits, and conceptual conflation that reduces consciousness to specific human features. These distortions can operate explicitly through conscious theoretical commitments or implicitly through unexamined research assumptions. This distortion can be explicit, when investigators consciously privilege human models, or implicit, when unexamined human-centred assumptions slip into experimental design, interpretation, and theory.

The pernicious element lies not in beginning from human experience—which is epistemically inevitable—but in unjustifiably transforming human-specific features into universal requirements while systematically dismissing challenging evidence.

Pernicious anthropocentrism differs fundamentally from inevitable anthropocentrism in representing a failure of epistemological reflexivity—researchers become trapped within their human perspective rather than using it as a starting point. While we have no choice but begin from human experience, pernicious anthropocentrism treats this necessity as a justification for never moving beyond it. Instead of recognizing human consciousness as one manifestation among many, it elevates human experience to the universal template against which all consciousness must be measured. This transforms our unavoidable human starting point from a provisional heuristic into a rigid orthodoxy that systematically excludes alternative forms of consciousness.

Pernicious anthropocentrism operates through three primary mechanisms: (1) imposing human-specific criteria as universal standards, (2) treating human consciousness as the normative benchmark rather than one manifestation among many, and (3) systematically privileging research methods designed for and validated on humans. Pernicious anthropocentrism creates a self-reinforcing cycle: human-specific criteria determine what counts as consciousness, methods calibrated to those criteria detect consciousness only where it resembles human consciousness, and these findings reinforce the original human-centred criteria.

A concrete example illustrates this difference: mirror self-recognition (MSR) tests were originally developed based on human developmental psychology (children typically pass around age 2) and have been used as a measure of self-awareness across species (Gallup, 1970). Some animals—great apes, elephants, dolphins, and certain corvids—pass this test, while many intelligent animals fail. Pernicious anthropocentrism manifests when researchers conclude that animals failing the test lack any form of self-awareness, rather than considering that self-awareness might manifest differently across species based on their sensory systems and ecological niches. Horowitz (2017) demonstrated this by developing an "olfactory mirror" test for dogs—using scent rather than vision as the sensory modality—and found that dogs could distinguish their own modified scent from others, suggesting a form of self-recognition appropriate to their primary sensory modality.³ The error in the original conclusion was not using a human-derived test (which is inevitable) but treating a specifically visual form of self-recognition as the sole legitimate marker of self-awareness (which exemplifies pernicious anthropocentrism).

Similarly, corticocortical approaches to pain—assuming that pain requires structures homologous to the human neocortex—led to the dismissal of fish pain for decades. Detailed studies of fish neuroanatomy, physiology, and behaviour have revealed that fish possess specialized nociceptors, show appropriate physiological stress responses to noxious stimuli, and modify their behaviour in ways consistent with pain states (Sneddon et al., 2014b). The original dismissal of fish pain reflected pernicious anthropocentrism by imposing a human-specific neural criterion, while the revised understanding demonstrates how we can correct this bias by focusing on functional rather than structural criteria for pain.

In machine consciousness research, pernicious anthropocentrism manifests when researchers dismiss computational consciousness because it lacks biological implementation, or conversely, when they attribute consciousness to systems based solely on human-like linguistic behaviour without evidence of genuine experiential states. Searle's (2002a) biological chauvinism and uncritical attribution of consciousness to large language models based on conversational fluency both exemplify this bias.

These examples illustrate how pernicious anthropocentrism can distort consciousness research by imposing human-specific criteria as universal standards. In the next section, I distinguish explicit and implicit forms of this bias and analyse how they operate across methodological, conceptual, and institutional domains.

3.2 Explicit vs. Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism

Pernicious anthropocentrism takes two forms: explicit and implicit. While they operate through different mechanisms, both systematically distort consciousness research.

3.2.1 Explicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism

I define Explicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism as follows:

Explicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism occurs when researchers treat human-specific traits—such as verbal reportability, neocortical structure, or higher-order self-reflection—as definitional criteria for consciousness while committing two methodological mistakes. First, they use circular reasoning to establish these criteria. They assume human consciousness is the definitive example, identify traits that characterize human consciousness, and then conclude these traits must be necessary for all consciousness—without providing independent reasons for why these particular traits should be definitional. Second, they adopt a dogmatic attitude toward these criteria, refusing to revise or question them when presented with alternative frameworks or conflicting evidence. The pernicious element lies not in concluding that only humans are conscious, but in arriving at this conclusion through flawed reasoning combined with epistemic inflexibility or arrogance.⁴

Historically, explicit pernicious anthropocentrism was widespread and took various forms. Descartes viewed animals as mere automata lacking true sensation or awareness (Descartes, 2008). Early behaviourists like Watson forbade any attribution of consciousness to animals, treating them as stimulus-response machines fundamentally unlike humans (Watson, 2019). The medieval doctrine of the "great chain of being" entrenched a linear hierarchy with humans at the apex—anything "lower" was presumed to possess correspondingly diminished mental capacities, a view even Darwin largely inherited despite his evolutionary critique (Darwin, 1871).

While few contemporary researchers would endorse such extreme positions, explicit pernicious anthropocentrism persists in subtler forms. Higher-order theories of consciousness exemplify this bias. Carruthers (2000) argues that phenomenal consciousness requires higher-order thought about first-order perceptual states, a capacity he suggests may be unique to humans and perhaps some great apes. The pernicious aspect emerges when theories developed to explain human consciousness are treated as defining consciousness universally, thereby excluding entities that might possess consciousness through different cognitive mechanisms. Rosenthal exemplifies this bias when he argues that "a mental state is conscious when, and only when, one has a thought about that state" (Rosenthal, 2019, p 258). By making consciousness contingent on higher-order thoughts—readily demonstrable in humans but difficult to establish in non-linguistic animals—this approach privileges human-like cognition as the universal standard. The problem isn't using human consciousness as a starting point but treating it as the only valid implementation.

In machine consciousness research, explicit pernicious anthropocentrism hinders scientific progress by systematically excluding promising research avenues. This bias appears when Searle (2002) argues that computational systems cannot be conscious because they lack human biological substrates—what critics term "biological chauvinism" (Dennett, 2017),. This exemplifies substrate chauvinism: the assumption that consciousness requires carbon-based implementations rather than functional ones. Similarly, neuroscientific theories exhibit neural chauvinism when identifying human-specific brain structures as necessary for consciousness. Dehaene et al. (2021) argues that consciousness requires global information availability through specific frontal-parietal networks. While acknowledging consciousness in mammals with similar structures, this model privileges human neural architecture, potentially excluding consciousness in radically different implementations—from octopus distributed nervous systems to silicon-based networks. These approaches conflate human-specific implementations with universal requirements, providing no principled argument for why consciousness couldn't emerge from entirely different architectures.

3.2.2 Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism

Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism is subtler and unintentional:

Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism occurs when researchers inadvertently build human-centred assumptions into their research while genuinely believing they are being objective. Unlike explicit forms where researchers deliberately privilege human traits, here the bias operates without conscious recognition through two unreflective errors. First, unreflective paradigm bias: automatically selecting research designs and evidence standards that privilege human-like performances without justification or recognition of this preference. Second, unexamined interpretive bias: systematically interpreting data to favour human-like manifestations while unjustifiably dismissing non-human-like evidence, all while believing they apply neutral scientific standards.⁵

This form is particularly dangerous because researchers cannot fix methodological problems they cannot see. They continue generating false negatives by excluding genuine consciousness in non-human entities and false positives by attributing consciousness based solely on human-like traits, all while maintaining complete confidence in their scientific objectivity. This makes correction impossible without external intervention, as researchers see no reason to question methods they believe are already objective.

Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism operates insidiously below the threshold of awareness. Researchers may sincerely believe they approach consciousness objectively while unwittingly importing human-specific criteria into their methods and interpretations. This bias manifests in several ways, most notably in the uncritical application of Morgan's Canon—the principle that animal behaviour should be interpreted in terms of the simplest psychological processes consistent with evidence. Originally intended to guard against uncritical anthropomorphism, this principle has often been applied asymmetrically, as Dacey (2023) demonstrates, setting a higher evidential bar for complex cognitive explanations in non-human animals than for similar behaviours in humans. This asymmetry reflects implicit pernicious anthropocentrism: the assumption that human-like cognition represents an exceptional case requiring special justification when attributed to non-humans.

Buckner (2013) provides a detailed analysis of this problem, showing how Morgan's Canon is frequently misapplied as a "default to simplicity" rule rather than a principle of evidential parity. He notes that researchers often default to simpler explanations for animal behaviour without requiring comparable evidence that these simpler explanations are adequate. This methodological asymmetry reflects an implicit assumption that human-like cognition is extraordinary in non-humans and thus requires extraordinary evidence—an assumption that privileges the human case without explicit justification.

Implicit pernicious anthropocentrism frequently manifests in experimental design. Studies of theory of mind in primates often rely on visual cues and pointing gestures—natural to humans but potentially meaningless to other species. Leavens et al. (2019) demonstrate how this bias distorts research on ape pointing: when testing environments are properly matched—controlling for rearing history and task demands—apes show pointing abilities comparable to human children. Similarly, self-awareness tests typically emphasize visual modalities over other potentially more relevant sensory systems. Plotnik et al. (2006) had to modify mirror tests substantially to accommodate elephants' body shape and visual field before documenting their self-recognition capacities.

In neuroscience, the emphasis on cortical structures reflects implicit privileging of human neural architecture. Barron & Klein (2016) note how researchers often dismiss consciousness in invertebrates merely because they lack structures homologous to the mammalian cortex, overlooking the possibility of convergent evolution—different neural architectures supporting similar functions. These examples reveal how implicit pernicious anthropocentrism operates through unexamined assumptions about evidence for consciousness, systematically privileging human-like manifestations while overlooking alternatives. The pernicious quality stems not from inevitable human starting points but from failing to recognize and correct for their human-specific nature.

3.3 Three Domains of Pernicious Anthropocentrism

Pernicious anthropocentrism—both explicit and implicit—manifests across three interlocking domains: methodological, conceptual, and institutional. Each domain involves distinct mechanisms through which human-centred thinking distorts consciousness research.

The first domain, pernicious methodological anthropocentrism, arises when experimental designs, measurement choices, and interpretive frameworks are uncritically transferred from human to non-human research. Boesch (2007) demonstrates this through his critique of chimpanzee cognition research, documenting how laboratory tests often involve tasks designed for humans that bear little resemblance to chimps' ecological challenges. When chimps perform poorly on these artificial tasks, researchers conclude they lack certain cognitive capacities rather than questioning the tasks' ecological validity. Heyes (2018) further reveals how researchers apply different interpretive standards to identical behaviours—the same anticipatory looking behaviour is interpreted as evidence of theory of mind in human infants but dismissed as associative learning in animals.

This methodological bias extends to broader scientific principles and neuroscientific approaches. The uncritical application of Morgan's Canon has evolved from a principle against uncritical anthropomorphism into a default assumption that animal behaviour must be explained more simply than analogous human behaviours (Dacey, 2023). Even neuroscientific research exhibits this bias through corticocortical models that privilege human neural architecture, overlooking how functionally similar processes might occur in different neural structures, as Barron & Klein (2016) demonstrate in their groundbreaking analysis of insect consciousness. In each case, the distortion stems not from inevitable human starting points but from failing to adapt methods to the species under investigation.

The second domain, pernicious conceptual anthropocentrism, involves definitions and theoretical frameworks that treat human-specific conceptualizations as universal templates. Traditional definitions of consciousness often privilege features particularly developed in humans, such as self-reflection, language, or metacognition. Andrews (2020) demonstrates how supposedly neutral definitions frequently contain implicit references to human-specific implementations, fundamentally shaping research outcomes. Hierarchical classification systems that arrange consciousness along a linear scale with humans at the apex represent another manifestation, as Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) critique in their analysis of "scala naturae thinking" about invertebrate consciousness.

This conceptual bias also manifests in terminology and fundamental framing assumptions. The terminology applied to animal cognition often creates conceptual double standards—Clayton & Dickinson (1998) discovered that scrub jays can remember what, where, and when required labelling this as merely "episodic-like" memory because the birds couldn't verbally report subjective awareness. Perhaps most profoundly, the binary framing of consciousness itself as an all-or-nothing property represents a conceptual bias that Birch (2024) challenges through his multidimensional framework accommodating diverse manifestations of consciousness without forcing them into human-centred categories. In each instance, human-specific conceptualizations become universal templates rather than products of our particular evolutionary history and cognitive architecture.

The third domain, pernicious institutional anthropocentrism, embeds human-centred thinking in scientific structures and practices that persist regardless of individual researchers' intentions. Funding priorities historically favour research on vertebrate models with greater neural similarity to humans, as Mather (2019) documents in her analysis of cephalopod research. These institutional mechanisms systematically shape the landscape of consciousness research, determining which questions are investigated and which remain unexplored.

These institutional biases extend beyond funding and publication to disciplinary structures and have tangible consequences. Disciplinary divisions between neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and ethology create barriers to truly comparative approaches, with each field employing methods and concepts that privilege human-like manifestations of consciousness. The resulting biases produce what Fricker (2007) terms "testimonial injustice"—animals' behavioural and physiological evidence of conscious states is systematically discounted, with consequences like the exclusion of cephalopods from welfare laws despite evidence of their sentience. Recent reforms, however, suggest growing recognition of these biases, with specialized journals, new funding initiatives, and expanded welfare regulations reflecting evolving scientific consensus about consciousness across species (Andrews et al., 2025). These examples illustrate how institutional structures can systematically exclude evidence, methods, or perspectives that might reveal consciousness in its diverse forms.

In conclusion, Pernicious Anthropocentrism operates systemically across methods, concepts, and institutions, privileging human-like traits while undervaluing alternatives. Addressing this requires interdisciplinary collaboration and broader comparative research. Section 4 introduces benign anthropocentrism—built on perspectival transparency, evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism—transforming our inevitable human standpoint from a limitation into a catalyst for inclusive consciousness science.

4. Benign Anthropocentrism

If anthropocentrism is inevitable, we must harness it productively. Benign anthropocentrism uses human perspective as a starting heuristic while guarding against its limitations. It treats human consciousness as a starting point, not a universal template, remaining open to revising concepts based on evidence from other species. Four principles transform our human perspective from limitation into resource.

4.1 Benign Anthropocentrism as a Necessary Starting Point

Even though anthropocentrism manifests in pernicious forms that distort consciousness research, it is not merely inevitable but necessary as our starting point. Our understanding of consciousness must begin with human experience because our conceptual frameworks, methodologies, and epistemic practices are inescapably human. We cannot step outside our cognitive apparatus, perceptual systems, and conceptual categories—they form the foundation from which all inquiry proceeds. Epistemologically, our human standpoint provides the only direct access we have to consciousness, as first-person experience is accessible to us directly only in our own case.

This irreducible subjectivity means we must start with what we know firsthand and work outward through analogy, inference, and observation to understand consciousness in other beings. This is not a methodological choice but an epistemological necessity. As Nagel (2003) argues in The Last Word, reason reflects objective principles whose validity transcends our particular perspective—our human rational capacities can yield universal understanding despite their human origins. Our human starting point is therefore not a limitation that undermines objectivity but the necessary foundation that makes consciousness research possible. The challenge is using this foundation responsibly and reflectively in our investigations across diverse systems.

Scientific methodology inherently reflects human cognitive patterns—every experiment, theory, and measurement tool emerge from distinctly human modes of understanding. We inevitably study consciousness through methods calibrated to human perception, using instruments and analysis techniques that embody human assumptions about what counts as evidence. There is no "view from nowhere"; we work from our irreducibly situated human perspective, making anthropocentrism not a methodological flaw but the very foundation of consciousness science.

Benign anthropocentrism transforms our unavoidable human standpoint from an epistemological prison into a scientific instrument. Rather than being trapped by our humanity, we weaponize it—using our perspective reflexively to unlock consciousness across radically different species and systems. This approach doesn't assume human consciousness superiority; it acknowledges that our human vantage point, when wielded with rigorous self-awareness, becomes the most powerful tool we possess for discovering alien forms of mind. Benign anthropocentrism converts what seems like our greatest limitation—being human—into our greatest advantage for understanding consciousness in its full cosmic diversity.

4.2 Defining Benign Anthropocentrism

I define Benign Anthropocentrism as follows.

Benign Anthropocentrism is a methodological framework that treats human consciousness and anthropocentric perspectives as provisional reference points rather than definitive standards. Instead of imposing human-specific criteria universally, this approach uses human conscious experience and human-derived research approaches as comparative baselines, recognizing that consciousness may manifest through fundamentally different architectures and processes. Human-derived concepts and methodologies serve as initial guides for investigation, rather than as templates that other systems must replicate.

When a system demonstrates capacities that differ from human conscious experience, the assumption is not that consciousness is absent, but that it may be realized through different mechanisms, express itself through alternative modalities, or operate according to different organizational principles—while maintaining rigorous standards for what constitutes evidence of consciousness. This framework empowers context-appropriate and scope-specific research across species and systems by providing structured comparative methods without predetermined conclusions.⁶ By maintaining openness to genuinely different forms of conscious experience while providing methodological structure, benign anthropocentrism facilitates rigorous investigation of consciousness across the full spectrum of plausible implementations.

This approach avoids the systematic biases of pernicious anthropocentrism by remaining open to non-human forms of consciousness rather than dismissing them as deficient or invalid. By treating human-derived criteria as provisional guides rather than definitive requirements, it prevents false negatives that incorrectly deny consciousness in systems operating through non-human mechanisms. It also prevents false positives that incorrectly attribute consciousness to systems based solely on their exhibition of human-like traits, regardless of whether genuine conscious experience is present. This dual protection ensures that consciousness is neither prematurely excluded from systems that operate differently from humans nor automatically assumed in systems that merely exhibit superficial human-like characteristics. Benign anthropocentrism proves methodologically valuable because it maintains rigorous evidential standards while avoiding the systematic distortions that lead to both types of misclassification, providing a concrete yet flexible starting point for investigation.

Benign anthropocentrism transforms our unavoidable human perspective from a limitation into a resource, helping us recognize when we project human-specific features onto other minds while developing methods to correct these biases and guiding productive investigation of consciousness across diverse species and systems without assuming human superiority. At its core, it respects the irreducible uniqueness of non-human perspectives, recognizing that every species—or artificial system—embodies its own sensory apparatus, ecological niche, and phenomenological world, with researchers remaining vigilant for evidence that questions or refines their initial analogies.

Ultimately, this approach transforms the human vantage from a Tyrannosaurus-style yardstick into a compass: it points us toward promising hypotheses while leaving the map open to new contours, combining perspectival transparency—acknowledging one's human origins—with evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism to ensure that no form of conscious expression is excluded by default, fostering a truly comparative science of consciousness that is grounded in our species' strengths yet unafraid to encounter and learn from radically different minds.

Benign anthropocentrism differs fundamentally from pernicious anthropocentrism, which asserts: "If entity Y does not manifest capacity X as humans do, then Y lacks X entirely." In contrast, benign anthropocentrism treats human capacities as reference points for comparison and sources of hypotheses, while remaining open to diverse manifestations of consciousness across species and systems.

Benign anthropocentrism requires sustained metacognitive awareness, with researchers continually interrogating their assumptions: "Am I presupposing this feature merely because it characterizes human consciousness? Could this capacity manifest differently in the system I'm studying?" As Andrews et al. (2025) argue in their pluralistic approach to animal cognition, we should allow animals to "teach us" what they are capable of through naturalistic observation, rather than exclusively imposing human-derived tests, embracing methodological openness while acknowledging that when we do employ human-inspired tests, we do so tentatively, interpret results cautiously, and remain cognizant of the perspective gap between researcher and subject.

In essence, benign anthropocentrism transforms the human standpoint from a limitation into a resource—a starting point for inquiry that, when employed reflectively, can illuminate diverse forms of consciousness rather than obscuring them. The following four principles provide practical guidance for implementing this approach.

4.3 Four Guiding Principles for Benign Anthropocentrism

Benign anthropocentrism is guided by four essential principles that transform our human starting point from a limitation into a resource for consciousness research.

The first principle, perspectival transparency, requires researchers to explicitly acknowledge the human perspective underlying their work by identifying which concepts, assumptions, and methods derive from human experience and recognizing their limitations. This transforms our inevitable human starting point from an invisible constraint to a visible resource that can be critically examined, adapted, and transcended.

Horowitz's (2017) exemplifies this principle in dog cognition research by acknowledging human visual bias and developing approaches centred on olfaction—dogs' primary sensory modality. Her "smell walk" methodology allows dogs to direct attention to odours of their choosing rather than following visual cues privileged by humans, revealing previously undetected forms of canine cognition. Similarly, Allen & Trestman (2017) show that anthropocentric language can generate useful hypotheses about animal cognition when researchers remain transparent about its limitations and test predictions against behavioural evidence. Both examples demonstrate how transparency about human-originated concepts enhances scientific rigor and enables more nuanced understanding of animal minds.

This principle has roots in feminist standpoint epistemology, where Code (1991) demonstrates that acknowledging one's standpoint enhances objectivity by making bias visible and correctable. Such transparency strengthens research by allowing more accurate assessment of animal capacities on their own terms rather than by strictly human standards.

The second principle evidential symmetry calls for applying standards evenly across species, without asymmetrical scepticism that privileges denying capacities to non-humans. If strong evidence is required to attribute consciousness to an animal, equally strong evidence should be required to maintain that the animal lacks consciousness when significant suggestive evidence exists. This principle ensures consistent standards without privileging human-like manifestations of consciousness or dismissing evidence from non-human sources.

In practice, evidential symmetry means formulating both anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic hypotheses and letting data determine which is better supported. For example, if a crow solves an 8-step puzzle, a symmetric approach considers this might indicate advanced planning rather than immediately defaulting to "trial and error" or "instinct"—only retreating to simpler explanations if further tests demonstrate inflexibility. Birch (2024) extends this principle ethically through a "precautionary principle": if evidence for animal pain is inconclusive but suggestive, we should err on the side of assuming they can feel pain to avoid potential harm. This balanced approach produces more accurate assessments of consciousness while recognizing that our judgments carry ethical weight.

The third principle conceptual flexibility encourages researchers to adapt their concepts as they gather data from diverse species, updating them to reflect other creatures' realities rather than forcing observations into rigid human-defined moulds. This treats concepts as provisional tools, ensuring they accurately reflect phenomena without anthropocentric distortion.

Conceptual flexibility transforms definitions as evidence accumulates from diverse species. When researchers initially defined tool use requiring manual manipulation—excluding birds by definition—New Caledonian crows' stick-modification forced adaptation to accommodate "held in beak" as equivalent to "held in hand." Shumaker et al. (2011) formalized this flexible approach, defining tool use functionally rather than anatomically to enable recognition across diverse species. Similarly, Barron & Klein (2016) demonstrate that consciousness should be understood functionally—as integrated sensory processing creating a unified world model—rather than anatomically. This functional approach allowed them to identify consciousness-like phenomena in insects despite their radical difference from vertebrate brains, challenging the assumption that consciousness requires a mammalian cortex and fundamentally shifting views about invertebrate consciousness.

This principle involves finding functional definitions that travel across species. Rather than defining memory in human-specific terms (verbal recall or visual recognition), we define it functionally as "retaining information over time to influence future behaviour." Evolutionary thinking aids this flexibility—just as flight broadened beyond feathers to include bats and insects, consciousness has expanded beyond "cortex" as evidence emerged in animals with fundamentally different neural architectures.

The fourth principle methodological pluralism advocates using multiple approaches to study consciousness, drawing from different disciplines to overcome limitations in any single human-biased method. Since no one experiment can fully capture consciousness—even in humans we use reports, scans, and behavioural tests together—researchers should deploy species-appropriate behavioural paradigms, physiological recordings, computational modelling, and evolutionary comparison. This consilience across methods builds a more robust picture of consciousness.

Methodological pluralism deploys multiple approaches to overcome any single method's limitations. Pennartz et al. (2019) demonstrated this by proposing six distinct indicators of consciousness—from behavioural flexibility to neural integration to illusion susceptibility—revealing evidence that would be missed by relying solely on anthropocentric criteria like verbal report. Seth et al. (2008) provided the theoretical foundation, emphasizing "triangulating across different levels and types of explanation" to combine philosophical, neuroscientific, and ethological insights. This approach prevents any single methodological bias from dominating our understanding. In practice, researchers like Birch et al. (2020), Dung & Newen (2023), and Clayton & Dickinson (1998) have implemented this pluralism across diverse taxa, using varied approaches—from multiple independent criteria to combined naturalistic observation and controlled experimentation—allowing each species' consciousness to be understood on its own terms rather than through purely human-centric measures.

These four principles revolutionize consciousness research by weaponizing our inevitable human perspective. Instead of being trapped by anthropocentrism, we harness it to unlock consciousness across radically different species and systems—from octopus intelligence to machine minds—while systematically avoiding the biases that have blinded the field for decades.

How does this approach work in practice? Research on cephalopod consciousness powerfully demonstrates all four principles of benign anthropocentrism in action, explaining our remarkable progress in understanding these genuinely alien minds. Perspectival transparency operates when Godfrey-Smith (2016, 2020) explicitly acknowledges octopuses as "an independent experiment in evolution" that diverged from humans 500 million years ago, forcing researchers to abandon vertebrate-centric assumptions. Evidential symmetry appears in Crook's (2021) groundbreaking work evaluating octopus pain using identical criteria applied to vertebrates rather than dismissing their behaviours as mere reflexes—revealing sophisticated pain responses previously overlooked. Conceptual flexibility emerges in Godfrey-Smith (2020) revolutionary "multiple partial selves" framework, which accommodates the octopus's radically distributed nervous system where two-thirds of neurons reside in their arms, fundamentally redefining how we conceptualize unified consciousness. Methodological pluralism culminates in Mather's (2019) integration of field observations with controlled laboratory experiments, revealing octopus cognitive capabilities that no single human-centric approach could have detected. This framework has unlocked octopus intelligence that previous anthropocentric approaches rendered invisible—from tool use and problem-solving to personality and social learning—transforming our understanding of consciousness beyond the vertebrate world.

Benign anthropocentrism proves equally crucial for machine consciousness research, where anthropocentric bias poses even greater dangers. Perspectival transparency appears when Schneider (2019) explicitly acknowledges how human intuitions may not translate to computational systems, preventing researchers from imposing biological assumptions on silicon minds. Evidential symmetry addresses the tendency to demand impossibly strong evidence for artificial consciousness while accepting weak evidence based on superficial behaviours. Shevlin (2021) develops consistent criteria arguing that patterns counting as consciousness evidence in animals should count equally in artificial systems. Methodological pluralism appears in Seth et al. (2008) integration of computational modelling, comparative analysis, and behavioural assessment. This framework prevents both anthropocentric dismissal of artificial consciousness and naive attribution based on surface similarities.

4.4 Comparative Questions: Towards the Better Future

Benign anthropocentrism transforms consciousness research by replacing binary questions ("Is X conscious?") with comparative ones ("How does X's consciousness compare to Y's?"). This shift from yes-or-no classifications to multidimensional mapping emerges naturally from our four principles: perspectival transparency opens space for diverse perspectives, evidential symmetry applies consistent standards across species, conceptual flexibility allows radically different manifestations, and methodological pluralism provides tools for studying alien implementations. Together, these principles reveal consciousness not as a binary property to detect but as a multidimensional phenomenon to map and compare across its magnificent diversity.

Definitive questions create three fundamental problems that relative questions brilliantly overcome. First, definitive questions enforce false dichotomies that flatten the rich variation in consciousness across species. Birch et al. (2021) demonstrate through meticulous analysis that consciousness comprises multiple dimensions that vary independently—an organism might possess sophisticated affective consciousness without reflective self-consciousness. Definitive classifications inevitably obscure these crucial distinctions. Relative questions, by contrast, excel at capturing this multidimensional nature, allowing researchers to track consciousness along numerous independent axes simultaneously, revealing a rich, textured landscape of minds that definitive approaches render invisible.

Second, definitive questions perpetuate insidious circular reasoning by defining consciousness using human markers, then "discovering" that only humans and similar animals possess it—a conclusion embedded in their initial definition. As Allen & Trestman (2017) compellingly demonstrate, this circularity has systematically impeded recognition of consciousness in diverse species by privileging human-like manifestations. Relative questions fundamentally transform this problem by converting our inevitable human starting point from a source of bias into a productive reference frame that illuminates rather than obscures differences, enabling genuine discovery rather than merely confirming our anthropocentric assumptions.

Third, definitive classifications impose a hierarchical ranking with human consciousness as the implicit gold standard. Godfrey-Smith (2020) reveals how conscious experience might be organized radically differently in octopuses, honeybees, or corvids, reflecting their unique sensory systems and evolutionary histories. Definitive approaches mask these important differences by forcing diverse forms into a simplified yes/no framework. Relative questions liberate consciousness research from this constraining hierarchy, recasting differences not as failures to achieve human-like consciousness but as fascinating variations adapted to different ecological demands and neural architectures—dramatically enriching our understanding of consciousness itself by embracing its diverse manifestations across the natural and artificial world.

This comparative approach proves especially valuable for artificial consciousness research. Rather than asking whether a large language model 'is conscious', researchers should investigate how information integration, sensory processing, and behavioural flexibility in large language models compare to these capacities in humans and other animals. This shift enables rigorous evaluation of artificial systems without presupposing biological implementation requirements.

Relative questions align perfectly with our four principles by encouraging multiple complementary research approaches. Clayton & Dickinson (1998) exemplify this transformative shift in their groundbreaking research on episodic-like memory in scrub jays. Instead of asking whether jays have "true" episodic memory (a definitive question reflecting human standards), they investigated how jay memory compares to human memory along specific dimensions, revealing both striking similarities and fascinating differences that a binary approach would entirely obscure. Their work demonstrates how relative questions naturally implement perspectival transparency, evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism simultaneously.

This shift toward relative questions yields profound benefits for consciousness research. It enables investigators to explore multiple dimensions independently, building a far more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of consciousness across species and systems, as e.g., developed in Dung & Newen (2023). By focusing on specific dimensions—like capacity for suffering, temporal self-projection, or integrated sensory representation—relative questions support sophisticated ethical considerations that match consciousness's inherent complexity. This approach recognizes that the ethical significance of consciousness lies not in its binary presence or absence but in its particular qualitative features—exactly what relative questions are designed to illuminate.

The transition from "Is X conscious?" to "How does X's consciousness compare to ours?" represents the natural culmination of benign anthropocentrism. It acknowledges humans as an inevitable reference point while decisively rejecting the assumption that human consciousness is the only valid template. By embracing relative questions, we fulfil the ultimate promise of benign anthropocentrism: transforming our human starting point from a limitation into a powerful resource for understanding mind across the natural and artificial world, opening new horizons for a truly comparative science of consciousness.

5. Conclusion

Anthropocentrism in consciousness research is both inescapable and transformable. Left unchecked, it systematically privileges human-like consciousness while rendering alien forms invisible. Harnessed reflectively, it becomes our most powerful tool for understanding minds beyond our own. This paper distinguishes pernicious anthropocentrism—imposing human-specific standards universally—from benign anthropocentrism—using human experience as a provisional starting point. Four principles transform our inevitable human perspective into a catalyst for discovery: perspectival transparency acknowledges our limitations, evidential symmetry applies consistent standards, conceptual flexibility adapts concepts to new evidence, and methodological pluralism employs diverse approaches. By replacing binary questions with comparative analysis, this framework enables rigorous, inclusive consciousness science that transcends human limitations while acknowledging human origins, revealing consciousness in its magnificent diversity across biological and artificial systems.

References

Allen, C., & Trestman, M. (2017). Animal Consciousness. In The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (pp. 63–76). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119132363.ch5

Anderson, E. (2024). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/feminism-epistemology/

Andrews, K. (2020). How to Study Animal Minds (1st edn). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616522

Andrews, K., Birch, J., & Sebo, J. (2025). Evaluating animal consciousness. Science, 387(6736), 822–824. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp4990

Barron, A. B., & Klein, C. (2016). What insects can tell us about the origins of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(18), 4900–4908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520084113

Birch, J. (2024). The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI. Oxford University Press.

Birch, J., Burn, C., Schnell, A., Browning, H., & Crump, A. (2021). Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. https://philarchive.org/rec/BIRROT-5

Boddice, R. (Ed.). (2011). Anthropocentrism: Human, Animals, Environments. Brill.

Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(3), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.3.227

Buckner, C. (2013). Morgan’s Canon, meet Hume’s Dictum: Avoiding anthropofabulation in cross-species comparisons. Biology & Philosophy, 28(5), 853–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9376-0

Calarco, M. (2020). Thinking Through Animals: Identity, Difference, Indistinction. Stanford University Press,.

Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. (2012). Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. https://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

Carruthers, P. (2000). Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487491

Clayton, N. S., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature, 395(6699), 272–274. https://doi.org/10.1038/26216

Code, L. (1991). What Can She Know?: Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Cornell University Press.

Crook, R. J. (2021). Behavioral and neurophysiological evidence suggests affective pain experience in octopus. iScience, 24(3), 102229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102229

Dacey, M. (2023). Evidence in Default: Rejecting Default Models of Animal Minds. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 74(2), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/714799

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and Selection in relation to sex, Vol 1. (pp. viii, 423). John Murray. https://doi.org/10.1037/12293-000

Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2021). What Is Consciousness, and Could Machines Have It? In J. von Braun, M. S. Archer, G. M. Reichberg, & M. Sánchez Sorondo (Eds), Robotics, AI, and Humanity: Science, Ethics, and Policy (pp. 43–56). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54173-6_4

Dennett, D. C. (Daniel C. (with Internet Archive). (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. New York : W.W. Norton & Company. http://archive.org/details/frombacteriatoba0000denn

Descartes, R. (with Moriarty, M.). (2008). Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Oxford University Press USA - OSO.

Dung, L., & Newen, A. (2023). Profiles of animal consciousness: A species-sensitive, two-tier account to quality and distribution. Cognition, 235, 105409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105409

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

Gallup, G. G. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self-Recognition. Science, 167(3914), 86–87. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3914.86

Godfrey-Smith. (2016). Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness. Porchlight Book Company. https://www.porchlightbooks.com/products/other-minds-peter-godfreysmith-9780374537197

Godfrey-Smith, P. (2020). Metazoa. Macmillan Publishers. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374207946/metazoa/

Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and animals: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Harding, S. (1996). Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity’? In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds), Feminism And Science (pp. 235–248). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198751458.003.0016

Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking (p. 292). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674985155

Horowitz, A. (2017). Smelling themselves: Dogs investigate their own odours longer when modified in an “olfactory mirror” test. Behavioural Processes, 143, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.08.001

Key, B. (2016). Why fish do not feel pain. Animal Sentience, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1011

Leavens, D. A., Bard, K. A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2019). The mismeasure of ape social cognition. Animal Cognition, 22(4), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1119-1

Mather, J. (2019). What is in an octopus’s mind? Animal Sentience, 4(26). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1370

McShane, K. (2016). Anthropocentrism in Climate Ethics and Policy. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 40(1), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12055

Midgley, M. (1996). The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom and Morality. Routledge & CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethical-Primate-Humans-Freedom-and-Morality/Midgley/p/book/9780415132244

Mikhalevich, I., & Powell, R. (2020). Minds without spines: Evolutionarily inclusive animal ethics. Animal Sentience, 5(29). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1527

Nagel, T. (1989). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.

Nagel, T. (2003). The Last Word. Oxford University Press.

Pennartz, C. M. A., Farisco, M., & Evers, K. (2019). Indicators and Criteria of Consciousness in Animals and Intelligent Machines: An Inside-Out Approach. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2019.00025

Plotnik, J. M., de Waal, F. B. M., & Reiss, D. (2006). Self-recognition in an Asian elephant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(45), 17053–17057. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608062103

Rosenthal, D. (2019). Consciousness and confidence. Neuropsychologia, 128, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.01.018

Schneider, S. (2019). Artificial You: AI and the Future of Your Mind. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvfjd00r

Searle, J. R. (2002a). Consciousness and Language. https://philpapers.org/rec/SEACAL-2

Searle, J. R. (2002b). Consciousness and language. Cambridge University Press.

Seth, A. K., Dienes, Z., Cleeremans, A., Overgaard, M., & Pessoa, L. (2008). Measuring consciousness: Relating behavioural and neurophysiological approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(8), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.008

SETI Institute. (2025, May 5). SETI Institute. https://www.seti.org/home

Shevlin, H. (2021). Non-Human Consciousness and the Specificity Problem: A Modest Theoretical Proposal. Mind and Language, 36(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12338

Shumaker, R. W., Walkup, K. R., & Beck, B. B. (2011). Animal tool behavior: The use and manufacture of tools by animals, Rev. and updated ed (pp. xvi, 282). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sneddon, L. U., Elwood, R. W., Adamo, S. A., & Leach, M. C. (2014a). Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal Behaviour, 97, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007

Sneddon, L. U., Elwood, R. W., Adamo, S. A., & Leach, M. C. (2014b). Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal Behaviour, 97, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. (2024, April 19). The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/declaration

Watson, D. (2019). The Rhetoric and Reality of Anthropomorphism in Artificial Intelligence. Minds and Machines, 29(3), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09506-6

Footnotes

1^ Sentience, the capacity for valanced subjective experience, is considered a core component of consciousness, making these findings directly relevant to consciousness research (Birch, 2024).

2^ This definition aligns with philosophical analyses of anthropocentrism in several domains. In animal ethics, Gruen (2011) identifies anthropocentrism as valuing non-human entities only instrumentally, while McShane (2016) distinguishes descriptive anthropocentrism (humans as causally central) from normative anthropocentrism (humans as morally central). My definition focuses specifically on epistemological anthropocentrism in consciousness research—treating human-specific cognitive and neural features as the standard against which all consciousness must be measured. This type of anthropocentrism has been critiqued in different terms by philosophers including Midgley (1996), who termed it "philosophical anthropocentrism."

3^ Horowitz's (2017) "olfactory mirror" study exemplifies how recognizing and correcting for pernicious anthropocentrism can yield new scientific insights. By challenging the assumption that self-recognition must manifest visually (as it does in humans), she developed a species-appropriate test that revealed previously undetected cognitive capacities in dogs. This research demonstrates how critical reflection on anthropocentric biases can lead to methodological innovations that expand our understanding of consciousness across species.

4^ The philosophical underpinnings of explicit pernicious anthropocentrism can be traced to what Boddice (2011) terms "rational anthropocentrism"—the view that human rational capacities justify treating human consciousness as categorically distinct from and superior to other forms. This position has roots in Cartesian dualism and continues in modified forms in certain contemporary philosophical approaches to consciousness. Important critiques of this position include Midgley (1996) analysis of its conceptual foundations and Calarco (2020) examination of its ethical and epistemological implications.

5^ Implicit pernicious anthropocentrism shares structural features with what psychologists term "implicit bias"—unconscious associations that affect judgment despite conscious commitments to objectivity. Heyes (2018) notes that even researchers committed to evolutionary continuity often harbour "implicit discontinuity" assumptions—unconsciously treating human cognition as exceptional.

6^ For example, it enables nuanced investigation of consciousness in aquatic species that rely on lateral line systems, distributed neural networks in cephalopods, or information processing in artificial systems—each studied according to their own organizational logic rather than forced into human-derived categories.