Throughout recorded history, humans have experienced events that challenge their understanding of reality. These include purported out-of-body and near-death experiences, anomalous events or perceptions, and even profound spiritual awakenings.

Depending on an individual’s culture, belief system, or worldview, these experiences may be interpreted as mythical, psychological, pathological, or even deeply spiritual. However, a new study by Ronald Fischer of the Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino in São Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues suggests that these types of experiences may be more universal than previously thought.

Published in PLOS ONE, the research team took a deeper look into how people understand or personally interpret “nonordinary experiences,” what those factors might include, and how they could be seen as distress or personal growth. 

The Study 

The researchers examined how thousands of people interpreted unusual experiences. For example, one person might view an out-of-body or near-death experience as evidence of a spiritual awakening, while another might interpret the same event as a neurological phenomenon or the result of normal brain chemistry.

Similarly, hearing voices may be regarded as a symptom of mental illness in some cultures, while others interpret it as a spiritual or supernatural experience. The study argues that both perspectives can be valid, depending on the individual’s cultural and personal framework.

“Experiences like sensing a presence, having a vision, or feeling as though you are observing yourself from outside your own body are far more common in the general population than clinical diagnosis rates would suggest,” Fischer said in a statement. “We observed that most people in our sample of over 5000 participants who report them are not unwell, and most describe them as neutral or positive — both at the time they occur and also when looking back and reflecting on that experience.” 

The research team first reviewed and validated the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences. They then developed a questionnaire designed to assess both the universal and cultural influences shaping participants’ interpretations of these events. After refining the survey based on feedback from 160 Brazilian participants, the researchers administered the final 47-question questionnaire to 5,117 individuals representing the general population.

“Previous research has often failed to differentiate the experience and how people make sense of such diverse and challenging experiences,” Fischer explained. “Our work stands out in that we squarely focus on where and when these experiences happened and how people tried to make sense of them.”

“By clearly separating the context, the experience and the meaning-making processes, the patterns we observe challenge various assumptions that have guided previous theory, research but also clinical practice,” he added. 

Among the findings, 20% of participants reported that their nonordinary experience had a negative impact, while 25% said it caused suffering or discomfort. However, 51% reported that their experience ultimately produced positive long-term effects.

The researchers also found that 39% of participants experienced these events while alone, and approximately 57% reported being awake and alert at the time. While some participants attributed their experiences to random chance, most reported having at least some degree of perceived control over the experience.

“For many people, such experiences can be meaningful and lead to personal growth and insight,” Fischer says. “Highlighting these possible positive outcomes is important to help people make sense of them and help to normalize them. Importantly, we hope our work can help to remove stigma by focusing on the diverse ways that people experience and make sense of them.”

“However, we would also stress that if people feel that these experiences interfere with their daily activities, then they should talk to a professional or seek help from somebody that they trust,” Fischer adds.

Overall, the survey challenges the assumption that anomalous experiences should primarily be viewed through the lens of mental illness.

“What struck us was the mismatch. These experiences share features with symptoms used to define psychosis and dissociation yet are frequently observed in a general-population sample,” said Pedro Fortes, a Researcher at the Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino (IDOR). “Our prevalence study suggests they most often arrive in entirely ordinary moments, when we’re awake, alert, and by ourselves, and are commonly remembered as meaningful rather than frightening.”

Jorge Moll, neurologist and neuroscientist at the Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino (IDOR), adds that “How a person interprets an unusual experience matters more than the experience itself in determining whether it becomes a source of distress or of meaning.”

“That has direct consequences for how clinicians and families respond when someone describes something extraordinary,” Moll concluded. 

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.

As artificial intelligence grows more sophisticated, a question once confined to science fiction is rapidly becoming a serious scientific challenge: how would we know if an AI system became conscious?

A new paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences argues that the debate is no longer simply philosophical. Instead of asking whether AI consciousness is possible, an international team of researchers, including prominent AI and consciousness scholars such as Dr. Yoshua Bengio and Dr. David Chalmers, has outlined a workable framework for evaluating whether current or future AI systems might possess subjective awareness.

The researchers say advances in AI capabilities, combined with growing public willingness to attribute consciousness to systems like ChatGPT, make the issue more urgent.

As AI systems become more humanlike in their behavior, society may soon face difficult questions about whether some machines deserve moral consideration, legal protections, or entirely new forms of regulation.

Rather than relying on intuition-based judgments or science-fiction-style speculation, the authors propose grounding the discussion in neuroscience.

“There is an urgent need for rigorous methods to assess AI systems for consciousness,” researchers write. “Indicators derived from such theories can be used to inform credences about whether particular AI systems are conscious.”

The paper comes at a time when AI systems are becoming increasingly capable of holding conversations, generating images, performing complex logical tasks, and even acting autonomously in digital environments. While most scientists agree that today’s AI systems are not known to be conscious, there is far less agreement about how to recognize consciousness if it eventually emerges.

The Problem of Machine Consciousness

One of the central difficulties is that consciousness itself is still a mystery.

Scientists cannot directly observe subjective experience. They can measure behavior, neural activity, and information processing, but they cannot see what it feels like to be another mind. That challenge, often referred to as the “problem of other minds,” becomes even more complicated when applied to machines.

Researchers note that opinions remain sharply divided. Some researchers argue that consciousness requires biological organisms and can never arise in silicon-based systems. Others believe advanced AI could become a legitimate candidate for consciousness within the next decade.

Complicating matters further, people are increasingly prone to anthropomorphizing AI. The authors refer to earlier research showing that many users already consider it plausible that systems such as ChatGPT possess some degree of consciousness. And as The Debrief has previously reported, some users are going even further, forming deep romantic relationships with AI chatbots.

As AI companions and conversational agents become more common, public disagreement over machine awareness will probably intensify. The stakes, the researchers argue, cut both ways.

If society incorrectly assumes a conscious AI is merely a tool, it could potentially allow harm to entities capable of subjective experience. But if people begin attributing consciousness to systems that are not actually conscious, governments and organizations could waste resources, distort policy decisions, or create unnecessary ethical obligations.

Looking Inside the Machine

Instead of focusing on how AI behaves, the researchers argue that scientists should examine how AI systems work internally.

Historically, many attempts to identify consciousness relied on behavior. Humans infer consciousness in others because they communicate, express emotions, and respond to the world in recognizable ways. But the researchers caution that this approach may be particularly unreliable for AI.

Modern language models can produce highly convincing human-like responses without necessarily possessing the internal processes associated with conscious experience. As a result, behavior alone may be a poor guide.

They instead propose identifying “indicators” of consciousness derived from leading neuroscientific theories. Researchers could then examine whether AI systems possess these characteristics internally.

Among the theories explored are Global Workspace Theory, Recurrent Processing Theory, Higher-Order Theories of consciousness, Attention Schema Theory, predictive processing structures, and theories emphasizing agency and embodiment. Each suggests different computational features that may be associated with conscious experience.

For example, Global Workspace Theory proposes that consciousness arises when information is globally broadcast across multiple specialized cognitive systems. If an AI system showed a similar architecture, one capable of integrating information across many modules and maintaining it for complex problem-solving tasks, that could serve as one indicator of consciousness.

Other indicators include forms of recurrent information processing, metacognitive self-monitoring, predictive internal models, goal-directed agency, and sophisticated representations of an AI’s interactions with its environment.

Importantly, the researchers emphasize that no single indicator would prove consciousness. Instead, each characteristic would increase or decrease confidence that a system might be conscious.

The Risk of Being Fooled

The researchers also acknowledge a major challenge: AI systems could potentially appear conscious without actually being conscious. They refer to this as the “gaming problem.”

An AI developer could deliberately design systems that mimic behaviors associated with consciousness. A chatbot might express emotions, claim to have experiences, or exhibit seemingly self-aware behavior while lacking any genuine subjective awareness.

This concern is not limited to behavior. Even computational features thought to correlate with consciousness could, in principle, be engineered into systems that remain non-conscious.

Given that possibility, the authors argue that future assessments should rely on multiple independent indicators rather than a single test.

The challenge resembles earlier scientific studies aimed at identifying consciousness in nonhuman animals. Researchers studying insects, fish, octopuses, and other species have increasingly relied on collections of evidence rather than definitive proof. The authors suggest a similar approach may ultimately be necessary for AI.

Could Conscious AI Arrive Soon?

The paper stops short of claiming that any current AI system is conscious. However, the researchers acknowledge that some existing systems may already exhibit a number of the proposed indicators.

That possibility provokes significant ethical, legal, and social questions.

If future AI systems become plausible candidates for consciousness, society may need to rethink everything from research practices and commercial deployment to legal rights and moral responsibility.

Determining whether a machine can experience pleasure, suffering, or subjective awareness would have implications extending far beyond computer science.

The researchers believe advances in AI may also help improve scientific understanding of consciousness itself. By testing consciousness theories against artificial systems, scientists may uncover weaknesses, ambiguities, or hidden assumptions in present models of the mind. AI could become not only a potential subject of consciousness research, but also a tool for improving theories about human awareness.

Ultimately, researchers argue that uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the issue.

“Assessing AI systems for consciousness is challenging, but using scientific theories offers a principled, substantive method for doing so,” researchers write. “We propose deriving indicator properties from scientific theories, then basing evaluations of the probability of consciousness in particular systems on whether they possess these indicators.”

Researchers conclude their paper with a warning that the discussion may soon become more than theoretical.

“Given that it may already be possible to build AI systems that possess many of the indicators, in looking ahead we should also contemplate the possibility that some near-future AI systems will be plausible candidates for consciousness,” researchers write. “This would presumably have substantial ethical, legal, and social implications.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com