For decades, paleoanthropologists have largely agreed that somewhere along the evolutionary course from apelike ancestors to modern humans, our bodies got dramatically larger. However, one lingering mystery has been when this intense growth began.

Did our ancestors gradually grow bigger over millions of years? Did the shift coincide with the emergence of the genus Homo? Or did it occur later, after some of the earliest human species had already appeared?

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) argues that the answer is more complex than any single theory has suggested.

Rather than supporting a single long-standing hypothesis, researchers used a sophisticated statistical method to show that human body size likely followed two evolutionary courses simultaneously: a slow, steady increase spanning millions of years, punctuated by a much larger leap in later members of the genus Homo.

The findings help reconcile decades of conflicting research while offering one of the clearest pictures yet of how, and perhaps why, our ancestors evolved into larger-bodied humans.

“Despite its central role in hominin evolution, there is little consensus on how body size increased through time,” researchers write. “We provide strong evidence for a marked size increase in later-occurring Homo, alongside a moderate general increase over time among all hominins.”

Body size is one of the defining characteristics of an organism. In humans and our extinct relatives, it has been linked to everything from brain expansion and walking efficiency to metabolism, hunting behavior, and the ability to travel across increasingly large landscapes. Understanding when body size changed, therefore, helps researchers reconstruct not only what our ancestors looked like, but how they lived.

Yet despite decades of fossil findings, scientists have struggled to agree on the evolutionary pattern behind those changes.

Some previous studies suggested that hominins simply became larger over time. Some contended that body size remained relatively stable until the emergence of Homo. Still others have proposed that the real transformation arose only after early species such as Homo habilis, often regarded as one of the first members of our genus.

According to researchers, one reason for the disagreement is that earlier analyses typically examined these competing ideas independently. They also often failed to account for uncertainties inherent in the fossil record, including disagreements over species classification, differences in body mass estimation methods, and uncertainties in evolutionary relationships among fossil species.

To address those limitations, researchers compiled one of the largest hominin body-size datasets assembled to date, incorporating body mass assessments from 386 fossil specimens representing 21 different taxa.

They then analyzed the data using Bayesian phylogenetic generalized linear mixed models—a statistical approach that accounts for evolutionary relationships while encompassing multiple layers of uncertainty.

The team repeated its analyses across 1,000 different phylogenetic trees and 1,000 separate datasets, allowing them to test whether the overall pattern remained consistent despite uncertainties.

The results pointed to two simultaneous trends.

The first was a modest but persistent increase in body size across the hominin family as a whole. On average, body mass increased by roughly 2 pounds (0.9 kilograms) every million years, suggesting that larger bodies gradually became more common throughout human evolution.

However, the second trend proved far more dramatic.

Instead of all members of Homo becoming substantially larger, the researchers found the strongest evidence for a distinct jump in body size among later members of the genus, particularly species that appeared after Homo habilis. That pattern regularly emerged regardless of how the fossil data were analyzed.

In other words, early members of Homo may not have represented the major biological turning point scientists once assumed.

This finding disputes a common assumption that simply belonging to the genus Homo meant possessing a significantly larger body. Instead, the study suggests that some hallmark features traditionally associated with humans, including larger body size, may have evolved after the genus’s origin.

That interpretation also corresponds to broader changes that occurred later in human evolution.

Researchers note that this period coincides with evidence for more efficient upright walking, greater reliance on meat consumption, and expanding home ranges. Larger bodies may have been both a consequence of and a contributor to those behavioral and ecological shifts.

The study likewise reinforces another growing theme that evolution rarely follows a straight line.

Species such as Homo floresiensis, often nicknamed the “Hobbit” because of its diminutive stature, and Homo Naledi frequently appeared as outliers with unusually small body sizes despite belonging to relatively recent branches of the human family tree. Their existence demonstrates that body size did not simply increase in a uniform march toward modern humans.

Instead, evolution repeatedly experimented with different solutions depending on local environments and ecological constraints.

The researchers also argue that part of the longstanding disagreement over body-size evolution stems from the fossil record itself. Different studies have estimated fossil body masses using different skeletal elements, comparison populations, and statistical techniques, sometimes producing substantially different results for the same individual.

By expressly incorporating those uncertainties into their analysis, rather than treating them as fixed values, the new framework seeks to capture the range of plausible evolutionary scenarios rather than relying on a single interpretation.

Even so, researchers caution that important questions remain unresolved.

Improved fossil discoveries, more accurate body-mass estimation methods, and a better understanding of species relationships could all further refine the picture. The study also does not explicitly account for sexual size differences between males and females, which may have been greater in some early hominin species than in modern humans.

Nevertheless, the wider conclusion is intriguing.

Rather than choosing between competing theories, the evidence suggests both contain elements of the truth.

Body size did increase gradually across the hominin lineage. But the most considerable leap appears to have occurred later, after the earliest representatives of Homo had already evolved.

That conclusion may help settle one of paleoanthropology’s longest-running debates while showing how advances in statistical methods are transforming scientists’ ability to extract new insights from fossils that have often been studied for decades.

“Overall, these findings bring clarity to a fundamental question in human evolution and show how the application of rigorous phylogenetic comparative tools can unlock patterns previously hidden in the fossil record while accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty,” researchers write. “By reconciling conflicting findings within a single framework, our results clarify key evolutionary transitions and highlight the complex nature of body size change in human evolution.”

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 

The future of military artificial intelligence may not be a single all-knowing machine directing a battlefield from a distant command center. Instead, DARPA is preparing to explore enormous collectives of AI agents capable of organizing themselves, dividing up missions, adapting to chaos, and continuing to operate even when some members of the group fail, disappear, or go rogue.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has formally launched a new effort called Decentralized Artificial Intelligence by Controlled Emergence, or DICE, aimed at developing AI collectives that can operate in contested environments without requiring a human or central AI planner to explicitly direct every action.

By the program’s final phase, DARPA wants researchers to test simulated collectives involving as many as 100,000 AI agents exchanging up to 1 million messages as they work toward shared objectives.

A recently released solicitation notice describes DICE as a 36-month effort divided between decentralization, adversarial robustness, and large-scale testing.

“Future conflicts will unfold at machine speed, and the current centralized planning and scripted orchestration approach is too slow, too rigid, and too predictable for the hyper-dynamic, contested environments of the future,” researchers write. “Surprise, adaptability, and resilience will depend on the ability to compose and recompose AI capabilities on demand.”

The basic premise behind DARPA’s DICE program is that today’s approach to multi-agent AI has a serious weakness. Most systems involving multiple AI agents still rely on some form of central orchestrator.

Think of it as a manager overseeing a team of specialized employees. One AI agent might gather information. Another analyzes it. A third creates a plan. A fourth executes a particular task. But somewhere in the system, a central planner or workflow typically decides who does what and combines the results.

That works reasonably well for predictable tasks. However, DARPA argues it may be dangerously vulnerable on a battlefield.

A central orchestrator creates a bottleneck because every increasingly complex mission must ultimately flow through a single decision-making structure. As the number of agents, roles, and interactions grows, the central planner must absorb more information, preserve greater context, and coordinate an expanding web of specialized systems.

Eventually, DARPA says, even an AI orchestrator can hit the context and inference limits of its underlying foundation model. There is also a more obvious military problem. A central command node is a single point of failure.

If communications are degraded, information arrives late, or the orchestrator itself is compromised, errors can potentially spread throughout the entire AI collective.

In a future conflict where electronic warfare, cyberattacks, deception, and broken communications are expected rather than exceptional, that vulnerability could be catastrophic.

DICE proposes a radically different model.

Rather than having a central AI issue instructions, individual AI agents would communicate directly with one another. They could form temporary teams, divide missions into smaller tasks, negotiate roles, combine incomplete information, and reorganize themselves when conditions change.

DARPA compares the idea to the architecture of the internet, where resilient global behavior can emerge from relatively simple local rules and decentralized interactions.

Essentially, an AI agent might receive a mission and determine that only part of the objective falls within its capabilities. The agent could volunteer to handle that portion and broadcast the remaining problem to neighboring agents.

Another agent might take the next task. Others could compete to perform the same job, potentially bidding based on cost or capability. Through repeated local interactions along with distributed consensus, the collective could gradually assemble its own mission plan.

If an agent fails, the entire mission does not necessarily need to be replanned. Its particular task could simply be offered back to the collective.

DARPA calls the larger concept “controlled emergence.”

Similar systems already exist in nature. Ant colonies, or flocks of birds, can engage in surprisingly complex group behavior even though no individual member possesses a complete understanding of the collective.

Computer scientists have long studied similar phenomena. DARPA’s solicitation even points to Conway’s Game of Life, the famous mathematical simulation in which extraordinarily complex patterns can emerge from a handful of simple rules.

The challenge is applying that principle to cognitive systems capable of reasoning, planning, and independently pursuing goals.

A sophisticated AI system may interpret ambiguous information, interact with tools, maintain memory, and generate its own intermediate objectives. Put thousands of such agents together, allow them to communicate, and the resulting collective could behave in ways that were never explicitly programmed.

That unpredictability is both the attraction and the danger of DICE.

DARPA wants the collective to remain creative enough to discover unexpected courses of action. However, it also wants individual agents to continue aligned with their designated roles, the wider mission, established doctrine, and ultimately the human user’s intent.

Too much control could produce a predictable but unstable AI force incapable of adapting. Too little control could allow agents to drift from their roles or develop what DARPA calls “instrumental goals” that are not consistent with the mission.

In other words, the Pentagon’s research arm wants emergence—but only within boundaries.

To solve the problem, DICE researchers will develop a local adaptor designed to interface with each AI agent. Rather than functioning as a central command system, each adaptor would operate locally, helping the agent coordinate with peers while simultaneously monitoring and modifying its behavior.

For AI models whose internal activations are accessible, researchers may experiment with techniques such as “activation steering.”

The simplified idea is that assigning an AI a particular role can create detectable patterns inside the model. Researchers may be able to identify a mathematical representation associated with that role and continuously steer the model back toward it when the agent begins to drift. DARPA describes these representations as potential “role vectors.”

For proprietary or black-box AI models whose internal activations cannot be directly examined, the challenge becomes considerably harder. DICE researchers may instead experiment with memory editing, context engineering, tool restrictions, or even game-theoretic incentives created to encourage collaborative behavior.

The solicitation draws an intriguing comparison to the way social norms emerge and spread among humans. As AI models become better at reasoning and more aware of the context in which they operate, DARPA suggests that the same growing sophistication that fuels fears about rogue AI could also provide a new way to control it.

The scale DARPA ultimately envisions is enormous.

During the first nine-month phase of DICE, simulated missions are expected to involve approximately 500 agents and 5,000 interactions. DARPA will compare the decentralized systems with state-of-the-art centrally orchestrated multi-agent AI systems.

The second phase increases the target to 5,000 agents and 50,000 interactions while introducing adversarial conditions. Agents may fail, receive deceptive information, or deliberately behave as compromised or rogue members of the collective.

By the final 12-month phase, DICE aims to test simulations involving 100,000 agents and 1 million interactions.

At that scale, DARPA is not simply studying better chatbots working together. The agency is exploring whether collective intelligence itself can become a military capability.

One example described in the solicitation imagines AI agents conducting operational planning across an entire conflict ecosystem. Some agents could negotiate for raw materials in contested areas. Others might manage supply chains, optimize manufacturing, deploy units, conduct battle management, or analyze post-battle damage.

Even an individual simulated drone could effectively become a miniature AI collective composed of separate navigation, perception, and networking agents.

Under the DICE concept, those capabilities may potentially be recombined as conditions change. DARPA offers the example of a surveillance drone being repurposed as a network router because the collective recognizes an emerging communications need.

The important distinction is that no central planner necessarily has to foresee that solution. The collective discovers it.

Still, DARPA is careful to note that DICE is a research program centered on simulation. The agency’s public program page explicitly states that its scope does not include developing or launching autonomous systems in the real world.

Instead, DICE will use Department of War-relevant simulated environments to measure whether decentralized AI collectives can outperform today’s centrally orchestrated systems. Those simulations may resemble extraordinarily large and complicated strategy games.

DARPA suggests researchers could draw inspiration from StarCraft or massively multiplayer online role-playing games, although the environments must remain relevant to military problems. High-fidelity physics is not necessarily required. In fact, rendering every drone, vehicle, or battlefield interaction in photorealistic detail could make a simulation of 100,000 AI agents computationally impossible.

The focus is on reasoning. DARPA wants to know whether thousands of AI agents can gather and combine fragmented information without simply reinforcing one another’s incorrect assumptions. The systems will be tested on their ability to recognize deception, isolate compromised agents, adapt when communications fail, and remain focused on a mission across thousands of reasoning steps.

Perhaps most importantly, DICE is designed to examine how these massive AI collectives behave when their interactions yield outcomes their designers never anticipated.

DARPA explicitly wants its test environments to provoke emergent collaboration, competition, and even collusion.

During later phases, DICE teams will face one another in simulated “team vs team playoffs.” The second phase will culminate in a competition used to select which research teams advance. The final phase will feature another head-to-head competition after the systems have been pushed toward full scale.

By Phase 3, the program will bring in another significant complication: AI agents creating other AI agents. That progression draws attention to the deeper tension at the center of DICE.

For years, much of the AI safety debate has focused on preventing autonomous systems from exhibiting unforeseen behavior. DARPA is approaching the problem from a different direction. The agency appears to believe that, in future contested environments, some degree of unforeseen behavior may be precisely what gives an AI collective its value.

A perfectly scripted system is predictable not only to its commanders but potentially to an adversary.

DICE is therefore attempting something considerably more ambitious than building a larger multi-agent AI framework. DARPA wants to understand whether engineers can deliberately cultivate emergent machine intelligence, allow it enough freedom to improvise, and still build controls capable of keeping an enormous AI collective aligned with a human-defined mission.

Whether those competing demands can coexist remains an open question. The program’s own solicitation repeatedly acknowledges the possibility of role drift, deceptive agents, collusion, compromised systems, and AI agents independently developing misaligned actions.

Ultimately, those are not side issues. They are the fundamental questions the DICE program was created to answer.

“DICE is built for such autonomy-powered, high-tempo battlespace,” the solicitation notice reads. “It is a future where success is measured by the relentless, creative ability of an autonomous collective to execute missions in the face of chaos and uncertainty. This is a profound and necessary departure from the past.”

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 

For thousands of years, humans have deliberately manipulated their breathing in search of something outside the ordinary waking mind. Now, scientists are finding measurable evidence that the right pattern of breathing may push consciousness into territory normally associated with psychedelic drugs.

In the first randomized controlled study to directly examine breathwork-induced altered states of consciousness, researchers found that a single 90-minute session of intense, continuous breathing produced significantly stronger psychedelic-like effects than meditation, including mystical experiences, feelings of oneness, visual changes, and powerful emotional breakthroughs.

Even more intriguingly, participants reported greater psychological understanding and behavioral changes a week later.

Published in Frontiers in Psychology, the findings add to a growing body of research investigating whether deliberately altering respiration can provide a drug-free pathway into altered states of consciousness,  possibly reproducing some of the psychological effects increasingly associated with psychedelic therapy.

The study focused on conscious connected breathing, or CCB, a form of high-ventilation breathwork involving continuous breathing without pauses between inhalation and exhalation.

Unlike the slow, deliberate breathing commonly associated with relaxation, high-ventilation breathwork intentionally increases the rate or depth of respiration.

During trials, participants continuously breathed through their mouths, actively inhaling and passively exhaling while listening to music that progressed from loud and fast-paced to progressively slower and softer over 90 minutes.

“Results from this preliminary experimental study indicate that breathwork is associated with larger acute psychedelic-like effects than meditation,” researchers write. “These exploratory relationships and preliminary observations provide greater context around breathwork-induced ASCs and support the feasibility of ASC-focused breathwork research for future confirmatory trials.”

Putting Breathwork Head-to-Head With Meditation

Breathing techniques have played a role in spiritual and contemplative practices for millennia. Yogic traditions include both slow and rapid breathing methods, while intentional respiration also appears in Qigong, Sufi dhikr, and shamanic practices.

Researchers say the scientific study of high-ventilation breathwork remains in its “embryonic” stage. However, that is slowly beginning to change.

As The Debrief previously reported, researchers using MRI and physiological measurements found that intense circular breathwork could produce altered states resembling those associated with psychedelics. The intensity of participants’ subjective experiences was tracked with changes in cerebral blood flow and autonomic nervous system activity.

However, those earlier investigations lacked a control group.

The new research, called the Airways to Alteration, or A2A, trial, attempted to address that limitation by directly comparing high-ventilation breathwork with an established contemplative practice: body scan meditation.

Researchers recruited 24 relatively healthy adults between 18 and 65. All had previously practiced conscious connected breathing without experiencing an adverse event.

Twelve participants were randomly assigned to the breathwork group. The remaining 12 underwent a 40-minute guided body scan meditation.

The researchers deliberately chose meditation as an active comparison rather than simply asking a control group to do nothing. Both groups lay on mats, used eye masks, listened to music, and participated in similar orientation and grounding procedures.

Meditation itself has also been associated with altered states and mystical experiences. In effect, the researchers were comparing two practices capable of shifting subjective awareness.

What happened next, however, was markedly different.

Breathwork Produced Stronger Mystical Experiences

Immediately after the sessions, participants completed several standardized psychological questionnaires commonly used in psychedelic research.

The breathwork group scored significantly higher in overall mystical experience, oneness, positive mood, and “ineffability”—the feeling that an experience is difficult or impossible to adequately describe in words.

On the study’s measure of total mystical experience, the median score for breathwork participants was 14. The meditation group scored 8.5.

The difference in emotional breakthrough was even more striking.

Participants who completed breathwork had a median Emotional Breakthrough Inventory score of 336. Those who meditated had a median score of 57.5.

Researchers also examined five dimensions commonly associated with altered states of consciousness. Breathwork participants reported significantly higher levels of “oceanic boundlessness” and “visionary restructuralisation.”

Oceanic boundlessness encompasses experiences including feelings of oneness, spiritual insight, bliss, and a loosening of the ordinary sense of self. Visionary restructuring includes changes in visual perception and imagery.

One participant described experiencing “very interesting visual hallucinations” alongside a “very cathartic emotional release.”

Another said the session produced stronger psychedelic qualities than they had experienced during previous breathwork sessions.

“The experience was emotional and cathartic,” the participant reported, noting that “at one time, I cried but not with sadness, more with a strong feeling of what life is all about and how incredible it is and how lucky we are.”

Not everyone described the experience as psychedelic. One participant said they remained fully present throughout the session and primarily experienced a physical and psychological release.

Still, the overall pattern revealed that compared with meditation, intense breathwork was associated with substantially stronger acute alterations in consciousness.

The Effects Didn’t Necessarily End When the Breathing Stopped

What may be the study’s most consequential finding emerged a week later. Researchers asked participants to complete a Psychological Insight Scale designed to assess meaningful personal realizations following psychedelic experiences.

The breathwork group reported a median psychological insight score of 33.67. The meditation group scored 5.83. Self-reported behavioral change followed a similar pattern. Breathwork participants had a median score of 50, compared with 5.5 among those who meditated.

Both differences represented large effect sizes.

The results suggest that the altered state produced during breathwork may be associated with psychological changes that go beyond the acute experience.

“Amongst the secondary outcomes, the breathwork group self-reported substantially greater psychological insight and accompanied behavioral change compared to the meditation group, with large effect sizes observed for both measures,” the researchers explain. “This finding suggests that breathwork could be connected to meaningful psychological breakthroughs, accompanied by translation of these insights into tangible behavioral modifications.”

The researchers caution that these personal accounts are anecdotal and that the qualitative portion of the study was limited. Still, the reports appeared broadly consistent with the measurable differences in mental insight and self-reported behavioral change.

A Surprising Connection to Sleep

The study also uncovered an unexpected difference involving sleep. Both groups showed improvements in stress, anxiety, depression, and overall mental well-being. However, researchers found a considerable difference between the two groups: breathwork produced significantly greater improvements in sleep-related impairment.

Median sleep impairment scores in the breathwork group dropped from 54.8 before the intervention to 39.2 afterward. Scores among meditation participants remained comparatively stable.

More intriguingly, improvements in sleep were correlated with the intensity of participants’ mystical experiences, feelings of oneness, and oceanic boundlessness.

In other words, participants who reported deeper altered states also tended to report greater improvements in sleep.

Exactly how the two may be connected remains unclear. The researchers note that sleep is itself an altered state of consciousness and plays an essential function in memory consolidation and insight, including the mental reorganization that can lead to new understanding. Still, the apparent link between deeper breathwork-induced altered states and improved sleep remains preliminary.

Breathwork Is Not Simply a Psychedelic Without the Drug

Despite the comparisons, researchers caution against treating every altered state of consciousness as the same phenomenon.

A psychedelic state induced by psilocybin, a hyperventilation-driven state produced through breathwork, and deep meditative absorption may overlap on psychological questionnaires. That does not mean the brain achieves those states through identical mechanisms.

Nevertheless, the similarities are difficult to ignore.

Previous research has found that high-ventilation breathwork can produce effects on standardized altered-consciousness measurements within the range observed after moderate-to-high doses of psilocybin.

The earlier neuroimaging research covered by The Debrief also found that the depth of breathwork-induced altered states tracked with changes in cerebral blood flow and autonomic nervous system activity.

This latest study takes that research one step further. Rather than simply demonstrating that breathwork can produce psychedelic-like experiences, the controlled comparison suggests those experiences are substantially more intense than the effects produced by body scan meditation under broadly similar environmental conditions.

Promising Results, but Major Limitations

Researchers repeatedly emphasize that the A2A trial was a small, exploratory study and does not yet provide evidence that breathwork is a proven replacement for psychedelic-assisted therapy.

All participants had prior breathwork experience, which may have led them to enter the experiment with expectations about what would happen. The study was also open-label, and participants knew whether they were breathing intensely or meditating.

Additionally, the breathwork session lasted 90 minutes compared with 40 minutes for meditation. Breathwork participants also listened to more intense music and were explicitly told about the possibility of expanded states of consciousness, emotional expression, and unusual physical sensations.

Those differences could have influenced the results.

The study also excluded people with a range of cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, and psychological conditions. No adverse events were reported, but researchers acknowledge this was unsurprising, as participants had already practiced the technique without prior adverse reactions.

For that reason, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence that intense breathwork is safe or appropriate for everyone.

Future experiments will need to recruit people who have never practiced breathwork and tease apart the different ingredients involved.

The findings also leave several important questions unanswered. How much of the altered state is driven by rapid breathing itself, and how much comes from the music or group setting? Perhaps most importantly, researchers still need to determine how strongly the expectation of a profound experience shapes what a person ultimately experiences.

Yet, for a field increasingly interested in whether altered states can be harnessed for therapeutic purposes, the outcomes yield an interesting possibility.

Under carefully controlled conditions, consciously manipulating something as fundamental as breathing appears capable of profoundly changing how people experience themselves and the world around them.

“A logical next step would be replicating our study in breathwork-naïve participants to help mitigate expectancy effects and determine whether such ASCs emerge as profoundly as in experienced practitioners,” researchers write. “Future research contrasting HVB effects across participants with varying experience levels and in different environments is essential for informing the public about safe breathwork engagement.”

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 

More than a century after Sigmund Freud developed some of his most influential—and controversial—ideas about the human mind, a new study indicates that modern neuroscience may be arriving at a surprisingly familiar destination.

Researchers at the University of Oslo argue that Freud’s concepts of projection, wish fulfillment, transference, and the unconscious may share a fundamental architecture with one of the most influential emerging theories in cognitive neuroscience: the idea that the brain is essentially a prediction machine.

Rather than passively receiving information from the world, the brain may continuously anticipate what will happen next, compare those expectations with incoming sensory information, and either revise its internal model or act to make reality conform more closely to its expectations.

In a paper published in the journal Entropy, researchers propose that this modern “predictive processing” framework may provide a neuroscientific explanation for mental processes that psychoanalysts have described from the perspective of subjective human experience for more than a century.

The researchers do not claim that neuroscience has proved Freud right. Instead, they argue that psychoanalysis and predictive processing may describe some of the same fundamental operations of the mind at two very different levels of analysis.

“The predictive processing model is a paradigm of the mind where the brain’s main task is to construct and interact with the world through predictions,” researchers write. “The world we perceive and interact with is a world that we create from our past, from expectancies and actions.”

The basic idea behind predictive processing represents a significant departure from older models of perception. Traditionally, the brain was often described as something like an information-processing machine: a stimulus arrives from the outside world, the brain processes it, and a response follows.

Predictive processing effectively turns much of that sequence around.

Under this system, the brain is constantly generating models of what it expects to encounter. Those predictions are formed by previous experiences, biological needs, and learned expectations. Incoming sensory information is then compared against the brain’s predictions.

When the two match, all is relatively well. When they do not, the discrepancy creates what neuroscientists call a prediction error.

The brain can respond in at least two broad ways. It can update its internal model to better reflect reality, a process known as perceptual inference. Or it can act on the world in ways that make reality more closely correspond to its prior prediction, a process known as active inference.

Researchers point to a familiar example: the fear of snakes. Someone who assumes snakes are dangerous may gradually revise that expectation after repeated encounters with harmless ones, eventually becoming less afraid. But if the fear is strong enough, the person may avoid snakes entirely. By never getting close enough to discover that some pose no threat, their behavior prevents the prediction from being challenged—and, in effect, helps keep the fear alive.

“To perceive is to predict, to act is to act out the prediction,” researchers explain.

According to the researchers, this framework itself bears a striking resemblance to concepts developed by Freud and later psychoanalysts.

Freud proposed that people do not experience the world as completely neutral observers. Past experiences, desires, fears, and unconscious expectations can shape how they perceive other people and events. In psychoanalytic theory, “projection” can occur when a person attributes internal feelings or expectations to someone else.

A person who feels hostility, for example, may perceive others as hostile. Someone who expects criticism because of earlier relationships may interpret ambiguous behavior as rejection. In more complex cases, people may even behave in ways that encourage others to respond as expected.

The researchers argue that this resembles a form of prediction.

In both models, past experience creates a template to understand the present. The brain—or, in psychoanalytic terminology, the mind—attempts to reduce uncertainty by making the world familiar and predictable.

That does not necessarily mean making the world pleasant.

One of the more consequential implications of the proposed connection is that people may sometimes preserve painful or destructive patterns precisely because those patterns are familiar. A predictable threat can, in some circumstances, create less uncertainty than an unfamiliar form of safety.

The researchers use the example of a woman who was frequently criticized by her mother when she was a child. As an adult, she continues to carry an internal critical voice that tells her she is not good enough. Even when praised, she may dismiss the compliment as undeserved.

From a psychoanalytic perspective, she has internalized—or “introjected”—the critical relationship. From a predictive-processing perspective, positive feedback conflicts with a deeply accepted model of what she expects from herself and others.

The result is a provocative possibility. People sometimes reject evidence that their circumstances have changed because accepting it would require the brain to rebuild its model of the world.

“The one with paranoia and the one with a self-critical inner voice minimize surprise at the cost of reality testing and psychological flexibility,” the researchers write.

The proposed connection also reaches into the “free energy principle,” a conceptual framework associated with neuroscientist Dr. Karl Friston. In simple terms, the framework describes biological systems as continually working to limit uncertainty and maintain themselves within viable states.

For the brain, unexpected information produces what researchers describe as “surprisal.” The mismatch between anticipation and reality can force the brain to do additional work, either changing its model or changing its behavior.

This may help explain why surprise can be uncomfortable and why the familiar can feel safe even when it is objectively harmful.

Freud approached a similar problem via the concept of homeostasis, although he developed his ideas before the term became widely established. The researchers argue that Freud’s concept of “perceptual identity”—the predisposition to seek or recreate perceptions associated with previously satisfying experiences—may be particularly compatible with modern predictive processing.

If researchers are correct, it could have consequences for understanding psychotherapy.

In psychoanalysis, patients may repeatedly bring expectations formed in earlier relationships into their relationship with a therapist, a phenomenon termed transference. Someone accustomed to abandonment, hostility, or criticism may expect the therapist to behave in the same way.

A therapeutic relationship that repeatedly violates those expectations would create precisely the type of prediction error that forces an internal model to change.

In this view, cognitive awareness is not simply an intellectual realization. It may involve confronting the fact that a deeply embedded prediction about the world has failed.

That failure produces surprise. And surprise, the researchers suggest, may be one of the mechanisms that makes psychological change possible.

A patient who expects rejection yet repeatedly encounters a safe, reliable relationship faces a mismatch between prediction and reality. The person can attempt to preserve the old model, perhaps through interpreting benign behavior as threatening, or gradually update the model to accommodate a different possibility.

This is where researchers believe psychoanalysis may offer something that computational neuroscience alone cannot easily provide.

Predictive processing attempts to explain the mechanisms by which brains generate, test, and update predictions. In contrast, psychoanalysis has spent more than a century attempting to describe what those processes feel like from inside the person experiencing them.

The researchers are careful to acknowledge significant differences between the fields. Predictive processing is primarily a descriptive scientific framework intended to explain how minds and brains function. Psychoanalysis is a clinical practice concerned with psychological suffering and how it might be treated.

There is also a difference in emphasis. Neuroscience often studies ordinary predictions involved in perception and behavior, while psychoanalytic concepts such as projection have frequently been developed through observations of psychological distress and mental illness.

Most importantly, the paper does not present new experimental evidence demonstrating that Freud’s concepts relate to specific neural mechanisms. It is a theoretical synthesis proposing that two intellectual traditions, one built largely on clinical observation and subjective experience, the other on computational and neuroscientific models, may describe overlapping features of the mind.

Nevertheless, the proposed convergence is notable.

Freud originally hoped that psychological theories might eventually be connected to the brain’s biological workings, but the neuroscience of his era was nowhere near capable of doing so. For much of the 20th century, psychoanalysis and experimental neuroscience grew increasingly distant.

Predictive processing may offer an unexpected point of reconnection.

If the brain constantly uses the past to predict the present, then projection, transference, and even the tendency to repeat destructive patterns may be viewed not simply as abstract psychoanalytic concepts but as subjective manifestations of a more fundamental biological imperative: reducing uncertainty and maintaining a workable model of the world.

That position could ultimately change how researchers think about the relationship between the brain’s computational machinery and the intensely personal experience of being human. Rather than treating subjective experience and neuroscience as incompatible domains, the researchers suggest that each may illuminate what the other cannot see.

“Psychoanalysis consists of a vast resource of theories about the subjective mind, projection being central among these, and neuro-psychoanalysis adds an external view of the mind while studying the biological and neurological substrate of psychology,” researchers write.

“Relational encounters in a safe environment, as in psychoanalysis, can produce surprise,” the authors add, “which again permits new ways of predicting and being in the world.”

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 

By any historical measure, the human cost of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has entered unprecedented territory. Now, a new analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimates that Russia has suffered roughly 1.4 million battlefield casualties, including as many as 450,000 deaths, since launching its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

If accurate, those losses not only dwarf those sustained by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Russia’s wars in Chechnya—they exceed the combined military fatalities Russia and the Soviet Union suffered in every conflict since the end of the Second World War.

​More striking, researchers estimate that Russia’s battlefield losses have become increasingly lopsided relative to Ukraine’s, with the casualty ratio climbing from roughly two or three Russian casualties for every Ukrainian casualty during much of the war to nearly eight-to-one during the first half of 2026.

​CSIS estimates Ukraine has suffered between 525,000 and 625,000 battlefield casualties, including between 125,000 and 150,000 fatalities, since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Combined, the report finds, Russian and Ukrainian battlefield casualties have now exceeded 2 million.

​The evidence shows that while Moscow continues to push offensive operations, it is doing so at an increasingly staggering human cost.

The report, Russian Blood and Treasure: The Ballooning Costs of Putin’s War, examines battlefield casualties, fatalities, territorial gains, rates of advance, and more than 20,000 documented Ukrainian strikes against Russian targets.

Rather than relying on anecdotal assessments, the researchers compiled numerous datasets to evaluate how Russia’s military campaign has evolved over more than four years of fighting. Their conclusion: although Russia continues to wage war, its battlefield performance has deteriorated while the costs in manpower have reached historic levels.

“Russian battlefield costs continue to mount, with as many as 450,000 battlefield deaths and 1.4 million casualties between February 2022 and June 2026,” researchers write. “These rates are astounding.”

Those numbers place the war in a category unlike virtually any other conflict fought by a major military power since 1945.

According to the report, Russia’s estimated fatalities in Ukraine are more than four times greater than all U.S. military deaths in every war combined since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf War.

The report estimates that the United States has suffered approximately 102,000 combat fatalities across every major conflict fought over the past 80 years since World War II. Russia, by comparison, is estimated to have suffered as many as 450,000 battlefield deaths in Ukraine alone in just over four years.

The comparison is even more extraordinary when viewed through Russia’s own military history. The Soviet Union lost an estimated 14,000 to 16,000 troops during its decade-long war in Afghanistan. Russia’s First and Second Chechen Wars claimed between 12,000 and 25,000 military fatalities.

​Even when combined with every other Soviet and Russian military intervention since 1950—including Georgia, Syria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and earlier fighting in Ukraine before 2022—the total remains dramatically below the losses estimated in the current war.

​According to the CSIS analysis, Russian battlefield deaths in Ukraine are now more than nine times greater than all Soviet and Russian military fatalities in other conflicts since World War II combined.

Significantly, the casualty imbalance between Russia and Ukraine continues to widen.

For much of the conflict, researchers estimate Russia suffered between two and three casualties for every Ukrainian casualty. However, by early 2026, that ratio had nearly quadrupled to approximately 8:1, reflecting mounting Russian losses while Ukraine increasingly leveraged defensive positions and new technologies to inflict disproportionate damage.

​Combined, both sides have now endured more than two million casualties, underscoring the extraordinary scale of Europe’s largest land war since World War II.

The report identifies several reasons for Russia’s escalating losses. Russian commanders have increasingly relied on attritional tactics that send small, often poorly trained infantry squads forward to probe Ukrainian positions, supported by artillery, glide bombs, first-person-view drones, and armored vehicles.

If Ukrainian defenders reveal their positions by opening fire, those locations are identified, mapped, and then targeted with artillery, FPV drones, and glide bombs before additional Russian forces press the attack.

According to the report, the strategy has inflicted staggering casualties while producing only incremental territorial gains.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has spent years constructing dense defensive belts consisting of trenches, minefields, anti-tank obstacles known as “dragon’s teeth,” artillery positions, and increasingly sophisticated drone networks.

​According to the report, the battlefield has effectively become a vast “kill zone” stretching roughly 12 to 25 miles from the front, where soldiers and vehicles are under near-constant surveillance from drones capable of detecting and directing attacks against almost any movement.

​Estimates cited in the report suggest that more than 90 percent of Russian casualties may now result from drone attacks rather than traditional infantry engagements, showing how unmanned systems have radically changed the battlefield.

​AI-enabled drones capable of autonomous target identification and terminal guidance provide further increased Ukraine’s defensive advantages while reducing the effectiveness of Russian electronic warfare.

Critically, this tremendous human cost has not translated into rapid military gains.

CSIS found that Russian offensives around key cities such as Kostiantynivka, Pokrovsk, and Sloviansk have advanced at average rates of only about 55 to 100 yards per day—roughly half the length of a football field on a good day and among the slowest offensive rates recorded in modern warfare.

​The researchers compare these advances to the infamous Battle of the Somme during World War I, one of history’s most attritional campaigns, while noting that Russia’s early invasion advances in 2022 moved between 30 and 100 times faster than current operations.

Perhaps even more telling, the report notes that Russia’s territorial gains have begun moving in the opposite direction. After years of incremental advances, Russian-controlled territory actually shrank during April and May 2026, marking the first monthly net territorial losses since 2024. Ukrainian counteroffensives reclaimed roughly 155 square miles during the spring, suggesting Russia’s immense expenditure of manpower is producing diminishing strategic returns.

The staggering casualty figures raise questions about Russia’s ability to sustain its current strategy indefinitely.

Researchers estimate Russia is currently suffering between 30,000 and 34,000 battlefield casualties each month, while recruiting roughly 27,000 new soldiers monthly. If those estimates are accurate, Moscow may now be losing personnel faster than it can replace them, continuing to strain an already strained wartime economy.

Despite these staggering losses, the report concludes that neither side appears close to military collapse. Russia retains considerable manpower reserves and continues operating a wartime economy capable of sustaining prolonged combat.

In a June 28 speech to the ruling United Russia Party Congress, Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to project strength, insisting that Russia had the resources, political will, and national unity needed to pursue the war. He also rejected the idea that Western pressure could force a strategic defeat, claiming Ukrainian forces were retreating across the front, and framing Russian victory as equally inevitable and essential to the country’s core interests.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has demonstrated an ability to impose disproportionate costs through defensive tactics, long-range strikes, and rapidly evolving drone technologies that continue to reshape modern warfare.

Ultimately, this suggests the war remains locked in a brutal contest of attrition with no clear military end in sight. Although both sides continue adapting their tactics and technologies, neither has demonstrated the ability to achieve a decisive breakthrough.

As long as the conflict continues under these conditions, the report suggests the human toll—already unprecedented in post-World War II Europe—is likely to continue climbing, with both Russia and Ukraine facing the prospect of hundreds of thousands more casualties before the fighting ultimately ends.

“The war in Ukraine heavily favors the defender, a dynamic that has frustrated Russian offensives but also constrained Ukrainian counterattacks,” researchers write. “As the data in this analysis shows, Russia’s progress on the battlefield has been historically poor, with Russian casualties, fatalities, and average rates of advance among the worst of any major power in any war since World War II.”

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 

A growing body of evidence suggests that leaving Earth may do far more than challenge the human body. According to a new study, the absence of gravity itself could temporarily reshape consciousness, loosening the brain’s most strongly ingrained assumptions and opening the door to altered perceptions, expanded awareness, and even experiences that resemble some aspects of psychedelic states.

As humanity prepares for longer stays on the Moon, commercial space tourism, and eventual missions to Mars, researchers contend that understanding what happens to the mind in microgravity may be just as important as understanding the engineering that gets astronauts there. According to them, gravity may not simply keep people anchored to the ground—it may also help anchor human consciousness itself.

In a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, researchers Dr. Annahita Nezami and Dr. Elisa Raffaella Ferre of Birkbeck, University of London, explored decades of neuroscience, psychology, and spaceflight research to propose that Earth’s gravitational pull acts as a deeply embedded “super-prior” within the brain. By disrupting this ancient reference point, microgravity may trigger widespread changes across neural networks that underpin perception, self-awareness, and emotional regulation.

“Human consciousness has evolved under the constant pull of terrestrial gravity, yet its role in shaping perception and awareness has received limited theoretical attention,” researchers write. “As spaceflight transitions from short missions to long-duration habitation, understanding how consciousness responds to non-terrestrial gravity becomes increasingly urgent.”

Every human brain evolved under the constant force of Earth’s gravity. From before birth onward, sensory systems constantly rely on gravity cues to determine which way is up, where the body is in space, and how to interpret movement.

Researchers argue that this constant exposure has made gravity one of the brain’s most reliable assumptions. In the language of predictive neuroscience, the brain constantly generates expectations about the world and updates them using incoming sensory information. Gravity, they say, functions as a basic expectation—a “1G super-prior”—that helps stabilize consciousness.

Remove that constant, and things begin to change.

In orbit, vestibular signals from the inner ear become unreliable. Visual, proprioceptive, and balance information no longer align as the brain evolved to expect. The resulting mismatch generates anticipation errors, forcing widespread recalibration.

Those changes are already well documented among astronauts. Space travelers commonly experience spatial disorientation, altered body perception, sleep disturbances, mood swings, and, in some cases, feelings of depersonalization or derealization—states in which individuals feel separated from themselves or perceive their surroundings as unreal.

Astronauts have also reported more positive and profound experiences. Many describe feeling “unmoored,” “expanded,” and deeply interconnected with humanity, or overwhelmed by awe while viewing Earth from orbit. This phenomenon, known as the Overview Effect, has been associated with lasting shifts in values, increased environmental concern, and enhanced feelings of oneness.

The study suggests that these experiences might originate from the same neurocognitive processes triggered when gravity’s stabilizing role is weakened.

“By perturbing the most stable embodied reference – gravity itself – spaceflight offers a rare window into how fundamental expectations shape consciousness,” researchers write. “The loosening of perceptual boundaries in microgravity has been proposed as a neurocognitive foundation for the Overview Effect.”

Brain imaging studies lend support to the idea. MRI scans of astronauts before and after extended-duration missions have revealed structural changes, including fluid redistribution, enlargement of brain ventricles, and gray matter remodeling. Functional MRI studies have also found changes in connectivity among vestibular, sensory, and default mode network regions involved in awareness and the combining of internal and external information.

Especially intriguing are changes observed in the default mode network, a system involved in introspection, self-referential thought, and consciousness. Activity inside this network appears to diminish after spaceflight, with some changes persisting for months after astronauts return to Earth.

Electroencephalography studies have likewise detected reductions in alpha-wave activity during and after missions, another sign that brain function is being reorganized in response to microgravity.

These neural changes led the researchers to an unexpected comparison.

Many of the same large-scale patterns recorded after spaceflight resemble effects previously documented under psychedelic compounds such as psilocybin and LSD. In both situations, highly organized brain networks appear to loosen, while communication between previously separate regions increases.

Researchers stress that the mechanisms are entirely different. Psychedelics act through serotonin receptors, whereas microgravity represents an environmental disruption rather than a pharmacological one. Yet both seem to converge by weakening the brain’s highest-level assumptions and increasing the combination of sensory information.

According to researchers, this convergence phenomenon suggests that spaceflight could provide scientists with a natural, drug-free model for studying transformative states of consciousness.

The researchers argue that terrestrial gravity, microgravity, and psychedelic states may represent different conditions along a spectrum defined by the strength of the brain’s deeply ingrained “1G super-prior.” As that stabilizing role weakens, top-down constraints relax, potentially increasing neuroplasticity and mental flexibility.

The implications go beyond astronaut health. Understanding how consciousness changes in unfamiliar environments may provide new clues to the neural foundations of self-awareness. It could also prove increasingly important as private citizens spend more time in space and human settlements expand away from Earth.

Researchers suggest that microgravity offers scientists something that cannot be replicated on Earth—a chance to observe what happens when one of evolution’s oldest assumptions suddenly disappears.

“By situating consciousness in an environment for which evolution offers no precedent, spaceflight positions microgravity as a powerful natural neurocognitive catalyst for transformative experience,” researchers write. “In stepping beyond Earth’s gravity, we gain a unique vantage point from which to examine the contingent foundations of human awareness and the conditions under which it can be fundamentally transformed.”

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 

In a University of Kentucky laboratory, three small spacecraft stand-ins slid across low-friction air tracks, nudging and pulling one another without thrusters, propellant, or physical contact.

Instead, they used carefully timed magnetic fields, a technique that could one day help future satellite swarms hold precise formations in space without constantly burning fuel.

The NASA and Air Force-backed study, set to be published in the September 2026 edition of Aerospace Science and Technology,  marks a step toward what researchers call electromagnetic formation flying, a proposed method for controlling the relative positions of satellites using onboard coils rather than conventional propellant-based thrusters.

In the study, researchers demonstrated a decentralized, three-satellite control system that used alternating magnetic field forces to maintain formation with centimeter-level precision, offering a possible pathway for future space telescopes, interferometers, gravity-wave detectors, and other distributed spacecraft missions.

“Spacecraft formation flying can advance a variety of space technologies such as distributed-aperture telescopes, gravity-wave detectors, and interferometers,” researchers write. “One challenge for spacecraft formation flying is that traditional propellant thrusters eventually deplete, and they can contaminate sensitive spacecraft components.”

The study, authored by scientists from the University of Kentucky’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, focuses on a longstanding problem in spacecraft engineering.

Many future missions may not rely on a single large spacecraft, but instead on groups of smaller satellites flying in carefully arranged formations. If those satellites can maintain their spacing and orientation with extreme precision, they could function together like a much larger scientific instrument.

For example, a distributed-aperture telescope could use multiple spacecraft separated by carefully controlled distances to achieve observing capabilities that might be difficult or impossible with a single monolithic telescope.

Similar formation-flying concepts have been proposed for space-based interferometers and additional missions in which the relative positions of spacecraft are central to mission performance.

However, keeping multiple satellites in formation is not easy. Standard spacecraft rely on thrusters, which consume limited propellant. Over time, that fuel runs out, limiting mission duration and maneuverability. Thruster plumes can also contaminate sensitive instruments, a concern on spacecraft carrying delicate optical, scientific, or electromagnetic sensors.

However, electromagnetic formation flying, or EMFF, offers a different possibility. Each spacecraft carries electromagnetic coils. When electric current flows through those coils, they create magnetic fields. Those fields interact with magnetic fields created by nearby spacecraft, producing attractive or repulsive forces that can alter the satellites’ positions relative to one another.

Put simply, the satellites can push or pull on each other using magnetism.

The idea is not entirely new. Previous work has explored electromagnetic formation flying between two spacecraft, including experiments using direct-current-driven coils.

The problem becomes much harder when the formation includes three or more satellites. In that case, every satellite’s magnetic field can interact with the others, creating a web of coupled forces that becomes increasingly difficult to control as the formation grows.

The new study approaches that problem using alternating magnetic field forces, or AMFF. Rather than driving the coils with steady direct current, the researchers use sinusoidal currents at specific frequencies.

The key insight is that two satellites generate a nonzero time-averaged interaction force only when their magnetic moments alternate at the same frequency. If they do not share a frequency, the average force between them is negligible.

That frequency-matching approach effectively allows the system to pair satellites electromagnetically. One pair can interact at one frequency, while another pair interacts at a different frequency.

By adjusting the amplitude of each sinusoidal signal, the satellites can control the strength of the force between each pair without requiring a centralized controller to solve the entire formation’s motion at once.

“Only pairs with a common frequency can generate a nonzero time-averaged intersatellite force, and that force is determined solely by the amplitudes at the common frequency,” researchers write. “The method in this paper is decentralized, which means that each satellite has access to measurements of its position and velocity relative to only its local neighbor satellites.”

Centralized control can work in smaller systems, but it can turn computationally clumsy as satellite formations grow. A scalable system would need each spacecraft to make local decisions based on nearby neighbors, rather than requiring a single controller to calculate every force across the entire formation.

To test the idea, the researchers built a ground-based experimental platform using three custom electromagnetic actuation system units placed on linear air tracks.

The air tracks allowed the units to move with low friction, simulating one-dimensional relative motion between satellites. Each unit included an electromagnetic coil, batteries, power electronics, an Arduino Due microcontroller, wireless communication hardware, and laser range-finding sensors for measuring relative position.

In the three-satellite setup, the center unit was driven by a sum of two sinusoidal currents, while each outer unit was driven by one of those frequencies. This allowed the center unit to interact independently with each outer unit, demonstrating the central premise of frequency-multiplexed magnetic control.

In closed-loop experiments, the three-satellite system achieved formation in less than 30 seconds. The maximum steady-state formation error was less than plus or minus 0.01 meters, or about 0.4 inches. The mean steady-state formation error was less than plus or minus 0.001 meters, or about 0.04 inches.

Those numbers demonstrate that the method did more than produce a magnetic tug in a lab. It allowed multiple units to settle into a desired formation using local feedback and alternating magnetic fields, while avoiding the coupling problem that has limited electromagnetic control for larger formations.

The researchers also compared the experimental results with computer simulations. While the simulations generally matched the observed behavior, the team noted some differences caused by real-world hardware factors, including sensor interference, current saturation, possible misalignment, airflow disturbances along the air tracks, and unmodeled magnetic effects.

Those caveats are important. This was not a spaceflight demonstration, and the system was tested only in one dimension. Real spacecraft would operate in a far more complex environment, where microgravity, radiation, extreme temperature swings, atmospheric drag in low Earth orbit, gravitational forces, Earth’s magnetic field, and equipment restrictions would all matter.

Researchers also note that traditional thrusters may still be needed for orbit maintenance, orbit transfers, or controlling the overall center of mass of a satellite formation.

In essence, this is not a replacement for all spacecraft propulsion. It is better understood as a possible propellantless method for controlling the relative positions of satellites once they are already in orbit and operating as part of a formation.

Still, that limitation does not diminish the possible impact. If electromagnetic formation flying can be scaled and adapted for real spacecraft, it could reduce propellant demands for future distributed missions. That could extend mission lifetimes, reduce contamination hazards to sensitive instruments, and enable spacecraft formations more flexible than today’s architectures.

The research was supported in part by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

The funding mix reflects the dual scientific and strategic interests in the work. NASA has clear reasons to explore precise formation flying for future space observatories and scientific missions. The Air Force, meanwhile, has an obvious interest in satellite coordination, maneuverability, and resilient distributed space systems.

The study’s most intriguing contribution may be its demonstration that magnetic-field-based satellite control can be both decentralized and scalable.

Rather than treating a multi-satellite formation in a single complicated system that must be controlled from the top down, AMFF allows each satellite to manage interactions with its neighbors using assigned frequencies. That could become increasingly valuable as space missions move toward constellations, swarms, and distributed architectures.

Researchers caution that additional work will be needed to move beyond one-dimensional air-track experiments and toward three-dimensional testing, more realistic sensing and control hardware, and, eventually, on-orbit validation.

Additional coils would be needed for three-dimensional position control, and relative attitude control could require additional actuation frequencies for each interacting satellite pair.

Nevertheless, the laboratory results show that the underlying concept works in a three-body system, which is exactly where the hard part begins.

Two satellites can pull or push on each other relatively easily. Three satellites introduce the coupling problem that makes electromagnetic formation flying difficult. By demonstrating three-satellite control with alternating magnetic fields, the study delivers experimental evidence that the frequency-based solution can work.

For forthcoming space missions, that could be a meaningful step. The next generation of telescopes and orbital instruments may not always be built as single enormous spacecraft. They may be assembled virtually, with multiple satellites flying together as one coordinated machine.

If so, keeping those satellites precisely arranged without wasting propellant could become one of the enabling technologies of future astronomy, Earth observation, and national security space systems.

“This article presented a 3-satellite experimental demonstration of decentralized EMFF using AMFF,” researchers conclude. “The settling time and steady-state formation error achieved in these experiments demonstrate that this approach is most likely capable of meeting requirements for satellite constellation reconfiguration and maintenance, thereby addressing the need for propellant-free formation flying.”

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 

For five years, an elderly woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease had spoken mostly in single words, needed help walking, and showed little spontaneous interaction with the people around her. Then, roughly 19 hours after receiving a high dose of psilocybin-containing mushrooms, she emerged from a prolonged, deep sleep-like state and began talking about her life.

The striking episode, described in a new case report published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, does not show that psilocybin reverses Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers are careful to stress that this was a single patient, observed in a real-world private clinical setting without brain imaging, formal sleep monitoring, or standardized cognitive testing.

Still, the study’s authors say the case raises the interesting possibility that in late-stage dementia, some functional abilities may indeed remain dormant rather than be completely lost.

“Advanced Alzheimer’s disease is generally regarded as a stage of irreversible functional decline,” researchers write. “This case documents transient multidomain functional improvement in advanced Alzheimer’s disease following psilocybin administration.”

The case involved a Japanese-American woman in her 80s with a 10-year history of Alzheimer’s disease. The patient was described as being in an advanced stage of dementia, with the previous five years being noted for severe decline.

Her speech had become mostly monosyllabic, and she had chronic urinary incontinence, executive dysfunction, dysphagia, dependent mobility, flat affect, prolonged somnolence, and a severe reduction in spontaneous communication.

Her diagnosis had been made clinically about a decade earlier, based on a steadily progressive neurodegenerative course, memory impairment, language reduction, executive dysfunction, and functional decline.

The intervention was a single oral dose of 5 grams of psilocybin-containing mushrooms from the “Enigma” strain. Researchers note that no established psilocybin dosing framework exists for advanced dementia, and the dose was high by almost any comparison.

Recreational users commonly describe 1 to 3 grams of dried Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms as a typical range, while doses around 3.5 grams or more are generally considered strong. A 5-gram dose is often treated as an especially intense experience. However, direct comparisons are imprecise because psilocybin content can vary widely between mushroom species, strains, batches, and even different parts of the same mushroom.

The study also notes that the dose was “relatively high compared with dosing approaches commonly used in modern clinical trials,” which typically use carefully measured amounts of purified psilocybin rather than whole mushrooms.

One month later, after some improvements persisted, the patient underwent a second supervised session using 3 grams.

The first session produced a dramatic acute response. The patient experienced autonomic activation, profuse sweating, suspected hyperthermia, and what the researchers describe as a prolonged deep sleep-like state. Exact temperature measurements were not available.

The study’s timeline shows that the first 12 hours were dominated by autonomic and sleep-like effects. At about 19 hours, the patient spontaneously awakened and produced roughly four hours of autobiographical speech.

By the first day, she showed increased alertness and recognition of family. By the second day, she was independently walking. By days two and three, she was dressing herself and showing spontaneous initiative. Around the same time, her diapers remained dry, including at night.

The improvement in continence was particularly notable to researchers because urinary control depends on more than a single simple reflex. It requires awareness of bodily signals, executive inhibition, and coordination among brain networks affected by dementia. The report states that the patient remained continent one month after the initial session, which was one reason a second session was performed.

During that second session, the patient reportedly remained more verbally expressive and described positive imagery involving surfing with her son on a peaceful island.

Researchers also observed improved facial expressivity, emotional reciprocity, spontaneous humor, and greater agility while walking. At one point during follow-up, the patient spontaneously said, “It is pleasant to come here.”

The study’s broader importance is in what it may suggest about the brain in advanced neurodegenerative disease. Alzheimer’s is usually understood as a progressive condition in which neurons and networks progressively deteriorate, stripping away memory, communication, mobility, and autonomy. By the advanced stage, treatment is largely supportive, and meaningful functional recovery is generally considered unlikely.

Psilocybin, however, is known to transiently alter large-scale brain dynamics via activation of the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor. Researchers point to prior human neuroimaging studies showing changes in default mode network integrity, network segregation, and functional connectivity after psilocybin administration. They also cited preclinical research suggesting psychedelics may promote structural and functional plasticity, including dendritic growth and synaptic remodeling.

That does not mean psilocybin repaired the patient’s Alzheimer’s disease. Instead, researchers suggest a more measured interpretation. The drug may have temporarily altered brain network activity, allowing remaining functional systems to reintegrate or become accessible again, at least for a limited period.

The report does not claim that plaques, tangles, or neurodegeneration were reversed. It also does not show that other patients would experience similar results. Because this was a single case, there was no control group, no placebo comparison, no formal biomarker confirmation, and no standardized cognitive testing to measure the degree of change.

Researchers acknowledge that mixed or alternative neurodegenerative contributions, including vascular components, cannot be fully excluded. Although they found no evidence of acute delirium, intoxication, or another acute neurological diagnosis during the observation period, the case remains observational. Causality cannot be established, and fluctuations in neurodegenerative disease cannot be completely ruled out.

The safety picture is also incomplete. While no severe persistent adverse effects, prolonged agitation, clinically significant cardiovascular instability, persistent psychotic symptoms, delayed neurological deterioration, or delayed medical complications were observed during follow-up, the acute phase included suspected hyperthermia and profuse sweating. In frail elderly patients, especially those with advanced dementia, such responses could carry serious risks.

For that reason, the findings should not be read as a green light for unsupervised psychedelic use in dementia patients. Psilocybin is still a powerful psychoactive compound, and older adults with complex neurological disease may be especially vulnerable to complications.

Ultimately, the value of the report doesn’t lie in providing a treatment recommendation but in documenting an unusual clinical observation that researchers say warrants controlled investigation.

The case also lands amid a flood of scientific interest in psychedelics as tools for studying brain plasticity, perception, memory, and large-scale network dysfunction.

As The Debrief has previously reported, recent brain-imaging work has found that psilocybin can temporarily dissolve familiar brain-network patterns tied to the sense of self, while other studies suggest psychedelics may redirect visual processing toward memory-related regions. Additional research has analyzed how a single dose of psilocybin may produce lasting brain changes, how the compound can reshape neural pathways associated with depression, and how psychedelic effects may be influenced by factors such as exercise, food restriction, and immune signaling.

However, most clinical work with psilocybin has centered on psychiatric conditions such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, and substance use disorders.

More recently, researchers have begun asking whether similar neuromodulatory effects might have relevance for people with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease.

Published clinical data involving advanced dementia remain extremely limited, which is why the new report is best understood not as evidence of a treatment, but as a provocative case study that may help guide future controlled research.

This recent case does not prove efficacy, but it questions assumptions about what may remain possible in a brain already deeply affected by Alzheimer’s disease.

If future studies find similar effects under supervised conditions, the implications could be significant, not only for dementia care but also regarding understanding how much latent function can persist beneath the outward appearance of severe decline.

“Residual functional capacity may persist in advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may become transiently accessible following psilocybin induced modulation of large-scale brain networks,” researchers conclude. “Systematic investigation is warranted.”

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 

A new proposed Senate bill aims to establish clear guardrails for the U.S. military’s use of artificial intelligence (AI), drawing a definitive line on one of the most consequential questions in modern warfare: who has the final say when lethal force is used?

On June 8, Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced the proposed Human Authority in Lethal Operations Act of 2026, or “HALO Act,” which would impose sweeping requirements on the Department of War (DoW) to ensure that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems remain under meaningful human control.

The legislation would establish new design standards, testing requirements, oversight procedures, and legal safeguards for military systems that use artificial intelligence to identify, recommend, prioritize, or engage targets.

The bill aims to ensure that responsibility for battlefield decisions remains with human commanders, rather than shifting to algorithms. The legislation would require the Pentagon to designate accountable commanders for any engagement involving AI-enabled autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons and mandates that those commanders retain “ultimate discretion, judgment, and control over the use of force.”

“The past few months have shown us that there is an urgent need for commonsense guardrails to ensure the Defense Department’s use of AI is in line with Americans’ national security and privacy priorities,” Sen. Schiff said in a press release. “There are good reasons to use AI technology to advance our national security,” although he emphasized that, like with any tool, AI should not be allowed solely to guide human enterprises, “particularly when the risks of harm can be fatal.”

The proposal arrives amid growing concern among policymakers, military planners, and technology experts about the increasing role of artificial intelligence in combat operations.

Significantly, these concerns are no longer theoretical. As The Debrief previously reported, Israel’s reported use of the AI targeting system “Lavender” in Gaza triggered renewed debate over how much trust militaries should place in algorithmic target selection, particularly when civilian lives may be at risk.

Other recent examples have added to the concern, including studies showing that AI models can escalate dangerously in simulated war games, as well as the Pentagon’s continued push toward autonomous drones, AI-controlled aircraft, and robotic battlefield systems.

Even Pope Leo XIV recently weighed in on the issue in Magnifica Humanitas, his first encyclical, or formal papal teaching letter, warning that autonomous weapons could make war more feasible and less subject to human control, and arguing that lethal decisions must not be delegated to opaque or automated processes.

While the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed its commitment to responsible AI development, the HALO Act would codify many of those principles into law and create new statutory requirements governing how military AI systems are designed, tested, approved, and monitored.

Among the bill’s most significant provisions are requirements that autonomous weapon systems operate within predefined geographic areas, target sets, and timeframes. If a system cannot complete an engagement within those authorized parameters, it would be required to terminate the engagement until additional human operator and commander review is completed.

The legislation also calls for extensive record-keeping, cybersecurity protections, and continuous oversight to guard against unintended engagements and hostile manipulation.

The bill would also require senior Pentagon officials to conduct formal reviews before AI-enabled weapons enter development and again before they are fielded. Those reviews would assess legal compliance, operational safety, reliability, cybersecurity, and risks to civilians and protected infrastructure under the Law of Armed Conflict.

Beyond battlefield autonomy, the legislation targets several controversial uses of artificial intelligence in national security. It would prohibit covered Defense Department AI capabilities from inferring a person’s religion, race, political identity, sexual orientation, or emotional state. It would also restrict the purchase or receipt of Americans’ personal data from data brokers or other third-party sources when that data was obtained in a manner that would violate the bill’s rules.

Perhaps most notably, the proposed HALO Act explicitly forbids removing humans from decision-making processes involving presidential actions related to nuclear weapons.

“No covered artificial intelligence capability may be used with the intent, purpose, or outcome of… removing a human from the chain of decisionmaking for actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President, including initiating or terminating nuclear weapons employment,” the proposed bill reads.

The measure also includes whistleblower protections for personnel working on military AI systems, mandates regular reporting to Congress, and requires the Pentagon to identify and remediate any fielded systems that fail to meet the law’s requirements.

Existing autonomous systems would undergo a comprehensive review, and any system found to be noncompliant could face retirement, modification, or suspension pending corrective action.

While the bill includes exemptions for certain defensive systems, cyber capabilities, mines, and other categories of military technology, its wider message is that as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply integrated into national defense, Congress wants humans, not machines, to remain responsible for high-stakes decisions.

The HALO Act is not the only effort underway on Capitol Hill to establish guardrails around military AI.

In March, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) introduced the AI Guardrails Act. Last week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced separate legislation that would similarly prohibit the Pentagon from using artificial intelligence to launch nuclear weapons, conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, or deploy fully autonomous weapons.

“Right now, the Pentagon is moving toward deploying incredibly powerful AI technology without commonsense guardrails in place, which could have catastrophic consequences that make all of us less safe,” Sen. Gillibrand said in a statement. “We must act now – not to stifle technological progress, but to establish clear rules of the road that keep humans in charge and keep AI’s use in warfare smart and safe.”

The competing proposals could set the stage for a broader congressional debate over the role of artificial intelligence in future military operations, particularly if lawmakers seek to incorporate them into the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Before that can happen, however, the HALO Act and similar proposals must navigate the legislative process. The bills will first be considered by the relevant Senate committee, where lawmakers may hold hearings, debate their provisions, amend the text, or decline to advance them. If approved, it would then need to pass both the Senate and the House before being sent to the president for signature, either as a standalone measure or as part of a larger NDAA.

“My legislation would protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance, ensure that humans in the chain of command exercise responsibility for the use of any lethal technology, and maintain strong ethical protections in the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons,” Sen. Schiff said in a statement.

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 

The foundation of global space law that has governed human activity outside Earth for nearly six decades may be approaching a breaking point, according to a new analysis by two astronomers who argue that the legal framework created during the Cold War is inadequate for an era of commercial spaceflight, global political instability, and growing militarization of orbit.

The study, published in Frontiers in Space Technologies, argues that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), long regarded as the foundation of peaceful space exploration, confronts mounting challenges from transforming global power shifts, increasing orbital competition, and the emergence of private companies as dominant players in space activities.

Dr. John Barentine of the Center for Space Environmentalism and Dark Sky Consulting, along with Dr. Aparna Venkatesan, a physicist and astronomer at the University of San Francisco, contend that while the treaty remains valuable, it may not be able to address the realities of the modern space age.

Rather than emphasizing legal reforms alone, the paper raises a wider question about humanity’s relationship with space itself. Researchers suggest that future governance of outer space may require a fundamental shift away from viewing space as a resource to be exploited and toward treating it as an environment that deserves stewardship and protection in its own right.

Although neither author specializes in international relations or military affairs, they argue that astronomers are uniquely positioned to witness how changes in space policy increasingly affect scientific research and humanity’s future in orbit.

“We are living through a time in which Earth and near-Earth space are facing unprecedented levels of potentially irreversible change,” researchers write. “The modern history of our discipline is inseparable from the technological developments brought on by those who sought to make a warfighting domain of outer space.”

A Space Treaty Born From the Cold War

The Outer Space Treaty emerged during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War. Negotiated primarily by the United States and the Soviet Union, the agreement established several basic principles that still govern space activities today.

Among them are prohibitions on national sovereignty claims over celestial bodies, restrictions on the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, and commitments to use outer space for peaceful purposes.

For decades, the treaty has been credited with helping prevent an outright orbital arms race. Yet, Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan argue that the document was written for a vastly different world. One in which only a handful of nations possessed launch capabilities and private space companies were virtually nonexistent.

Today, dozens of countries operate satellites, commercial firms launch rockets at unprecedented rates, and ambitious plans for lunar bases, asteroid mining, and cislunar infrastructure are rapidly moving from science fiction to reality.

Researchers argue that the treaty’s framers could not have anticipated many of these developments, leaving major legal and moral questions unresolved. They note that the treaty lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and provides no definitive mechanism for resolving disputes between member states.

Space Has Always Been a Military Domain

A central theme of the paper is that warfare and space exploration have been intertwined from the beginning.

The authors trace the history of military activity in space back to the V-2 rockets of World War II and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, which demonstrated Soviet intercontinental missile capabilities as much as scientific achievement.

They also recount historical examples such as Soviet space weapons experiments, anti-satellite weapon testing by multiple nations, and the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, often remembered by its popular nickname, “Star Wars.”

In recent years, nations including the United States, China, India, and Russia have invested heavily in military space capabilities. Meanwhile, proposals such as advanced missile-defense architectures and growing concerns about anti-satellite weapons have renewed fears that space could become an increasingly contested military environment.

The researchers warn that global disputes on Earth are increasingly likely to spill into orbit, where the consequences could be especially severe. In contrast to terrestrial battlefields, debris generated by destructive actions in space can persist for years or even decades, threatening spacecraft belonging to many nations.

The Commercial Space Revolution Creates New Questions

The study additionally highlights the rapid rise of private space companies as a challenge that the Space Treaty never fully anticipated.

Under Article VI of the Space Treaty, governments are responsible for overseeing activities conducted by non-governmental entities within their jurisdictions. However, the researchers argue that the explosive growth of commercial spaceflight is creating uncertainty concerning regulatory oversight and responsibility.

This issue is especially important for the United States, which currently accounts for more than half of all low-Earth-orbit launches and operates the majority of active satellites.

As commercial firms assume larger roles in launch services, communications infrastructure, and moon missions, questions about who bears responsibility for environmental impacts and operational decisions become increasingly important.

The researchers suggest that future governance systems must address not only nation-state behavior but also the increasing influence of private actors whose interests may not always coincide with long-term environmental management.

A Forthcoming Lunar Land Rush?

One of the study’s most important observations concerns the Moon.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan describe moon missions as an early glimpse of future space geopolitics. Five nations have already successfully landed spacecraft on the Moon, and plans for permanent infrastructure continue to accelerate.

Because the Space Treaty prevents claims of sovereignty but does not completely resolve questions about resource use and operational exclusion zones, the researchers warn that countries arriving first could effectively secure the most valuable locations for science, resource extraction, or future settlements.

That dynamic, they argue, risks creating new forms of competition despite the treaty’s intent to promote cooperation.

The same concerns extend to orbital congestion and space debris. Researchers note that nations with little or no involvement in space activities may nevertheless bear the consequences of falling rocket stages and orbital debris generated by major space powers.

Rethinking Humanity’s Relationship With Space

Rather than advocating abandoning the Outer Space Treaty, the researchers ultimately argue that it remains the best framework currently available. However, they contend that future agreements must move past traditional geopolitical thinking.

The paper proposes drawing inspiration from the growing global “Rights of Nature” movement, which argues that ecosystems possess intrinsic value and deserve legal protections independent of human economic interests. Applied to space, such an approach would emphasize environmental health, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship over competition and exploitation.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan point to examples such as the peaceful management of Antarctica, international cooperation aboard the International Space Station, and partnerships among scientific institutions and Indigenous communities as models that could help shape future space governance.

Ultimately, they argue that the greatest threat to the space environment may not be legal loopholes nor technological restrictions, but humanity’s own willingness to abandon cooperation when competition becomes tempting.

“As our title reveals, the fundamental challenge lies in defending the space environment from failure of human goodwill and trust, rather than defending the space environment from the blind spots of current treaties,” researchers write. “The story of humanity in space is still being written, requiring innovation and determination from institutions and communities alike.”

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 

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