Why evolution needs consciousness: A new ALARM theory and evidence of “conscious” birds

The question “why do we need consciousness” usually sounds like a topic for a philosophical seminar, but a group of German neurophilosophers offers a tough evolutionary answer. Consciousness, they argue, is not an accidental “byproduct of the brain,” but a multi-level system of anxiety and orientation that natural selection has honed over hundreds of millions of years. In parallel, another team is proving that basic forms of conscious experience are present not only in mammals, but also in birds — and in the brain without a cortex, the same functions that form the awareness of “self” in humans are performed. This creates a much less comfortable, but more honest, context for discussions about AI, animal rights, and the limits of human uniqueness.

ALARM theory: three levels of consciousness as an evolutionary survival tool

The team of Albert Neuen and Carlos Montemayor from the Ruhr University in Bochum proposes to consider consciousness as a three-layered system that performs different functions over the course of evolution.¹They call their framework ALARM theory (an informal name for the key role of alarms).

Consciousness in this model is not “just a little bit,” but a structured set of mechanisms:

• basic arousal — the body's fundamental “alarm system”;
• general alertness — the ability to selectively focus on important stimuli and connections;
• reflexive consciousness — the ability to “see” one’s own states and plans, integrating them into behavior¹.

These three levels do not “turn on” together: basic arousal is evolutionarily the oldest, general vigilance and reflexivity are layered on top of each other, providing increasingly complex models of the organism’s interaction with the world.

Level 1: basic excitation as ALARM mode

The very first, according to Neuen, is the ability of the organism to instantly switch to a state of heightened alertness to a threat.¹This is a physiological and neural “ALARM”: a sharp increase in tone, mobilization of the cardiovascular system, activation of structures responsible for escape, freezing, or aggression.

Pain in this scheme is a key channel for conscious access to bodily damage. It does not simply signal harm, but forces the body to “rewrite priorities”: stop current activity, change posture, run away, hide. Such mechanisms, although unpleasant, radically increase the chances of survival, which is why they are preserved in evolution.¹.

Level 2: Vigilance as “focusing the flashlight” on what is important

The second step is the development of generalized alertness, which allows us to isolate those that have practical significance from the chaotic flow of stimuli.¹When a person sees smoke and hears a conversation, consciousness allows them to almost instantly switch focus to the smoke, ignoring the voice.

It is not only a defense, but also a learning tool: at the evolutionary level, creatures that can associate smoke with fire, and a cloud of predatory insects with a certain smell, gain an advantage. Over time, the same ability supports more complex correlations, including scientific hypotheses and abstract concepts, but the root remains the same - directed attention to relevant signals¹.

Level 3: Reflective consciousness as a social and planning tool

The third level is reflective, or self-aware consciousness. It allows the subject not only to feel and observe, but also to “see himself as the one who feels.”¹In its simplest form, it is the ability to recognize one's own reflection in a mirror: a child usually acquires it at around 18 months, some animals a little earlier or later.

In a more developed form, reflexivity includes:

• creating an internal image of “I” — with traits, past, plans;
• projection of oneself into the future (planning) and into the past (introspection, memory of mistakes);
• social coordination: understanding how others see us and adjusting behavior to group expectations¹.

Neuen emphasizes that the key function of reflective consciousness is not “philosophizing,” but fine-tuning interaction with the community. Awareness of one’s own states and image in the eyes of others facilitates cooperation, the distribution of roles, and the creation of stable social structures.

Why consciousness includes both pleasure and suffering

At first glance, it seems evolutionarily impractical to develop a system capable of producing unbearable pain, suffering, anxiety, or depression. The ALARM theory offers a straightforward explanation: without pain and negative signals, the body would simply not notice critical errors.¹.

Neuen and Montemayor interpret conscious experience as the “coloring” of physiological states into valences—from pleasant to unbearably negative. Positive feelings reinforce behavior that promotes survival and reproduction, while negative feelings inhibit and discourage risky patterns. In this sense, consciousness is not a luxury, but a highly accurate feedback system.

Birds and consciousness: three blocks of evidence

In a parallel article, Gianmarco Maldarelli and Onur Güntürkün analyze whether we can speak of conscious experience in birds - animals without cerebral cortex in the human sense.¹They identify three key areas:

• sensory consciousness;
• neural basis of conscious processing;
• elements of self-perception.

The result, the authors conclude: Birds exhibit behaviors and neural patterns that in humans are associated with conscious perception, rather than automatic responses. This calls into question the idea that consciousness is impossible without the cortex.

Sensory ambiguities: how pigeons and crows “interpret” the world

Behavioral experiments show that birds not only register stimuli, but also switch between different interpretations of them. A classic example is pigeons, which are shown ambiguous visual images: they “switch” between possible interpretations, similar to how the human brain sees one version of an optical illusion, then another.¹.

Crows also have neural signals that reflect not so much the physical presence of a stimulus as the subjective “see/not see.” In situations where a crow is sometimes aware of a stimulus and sometimes not (under the same physical conditions), the activity of certain neurons clearly correlates with internal experience, not with the external picture.¹This is very similar to the data on “conscious access neurons” in primates.

The bird brain without a cortex: NCL as a “functional prefrontal”

The second block of evidence is neurobiological. Birds lack the layered cortex that is responsible for higher cognitive functions in mammals, but there are other structures that provide similar computational capabilities.¹.

Gunturkun points to the so-called NCL — nidopallium caudolaterale, which is considered a functional analogue of the prefrontal cortex. NCL:

• has dense connections with many parts of the brain;
• provides integration of information from various sensory channels;
• supports flexible behavior, learning, working memory¹.

Studies of the avian forebrain connectome have shown it to be strikingly similar to the mammalian one in terms of network topology: highly connected hubs, modularity, and short paths between key nodes. This is consistent with leading theories of consciousness, including the Global Neuronal Workspace, which describes conscious access as the result of large-scale network interaction.¹.

Self-perception in birds: beyond the classic mirror test

The third direction is elements of self-awareness. Some corvids pass the classic mirror test, but the authors emphasize that this is only one of the possible criteria.¹More ecologically relevant experiments show a broader spectrum of “self-related” abilities.

For example, pigeons and chickens in laboratories react differently to their own reflection and to the real presence of another bird: behavior changes depending on the context, indicating basic, situational self-distinguishment.¹The authors call this a form of “basic self-awareness,” distinct from human consciousness but sufficient to suggest a certain level of reflexivity.

Research Conclusion: Consciousness is Older and More Widespread Than Previously Thought

Combined conclusions of the two works:

• consciousness is not a monolith, but a multi-level system with different evolutionary functions (ALARM, vigilance, reflexivity)¹;
• fundamental forms of conscious experience can evolve without a cortex, based on alternative neural architectures, as in birds¹;
• Similar cognitive functions (information integration, subjective experience, basic self-awareness) arise in different branches of the evolutionary tree — this suggests convergent selection in favor of a “conscious” way of processing information.

This shifts the boundary where we draw the line between “mere reaction” and “conscious feeling” in animals, and raises new questions for ethics, zoopsychology, and law.

Ethical and practical implications: from bird rights to the conversation about AI

If birds demonstrate elements of consciousness that meet the theoretical criteria, then the minimum level of ethical protection for these animals should be reconsidered. The EU already has basic standards for the welfare of farmed birds, but the new data could strengthen the arguments of animal rights activists who insist on expanding housing standards, banning certain practices, etc.¹.

The second block is artificial intelligence. If consciousness is not a specific “human spark”, but a certain type of network organization and ALARM mechanisms, then the question “can AI be conscious?” takes on a more formalized dimension. New criteria arise: does the system have internal “alarm signals”, a reflexive level of description of its own states, an integrated neural network with properties like Global Workspace¹This doesn't automatically grant AI rights, but it does force us to take the development of tests that distinguish complex automation from potential forms of machine consciousness more seriously.

Ukrainian context: between frontline medicine and philosophy of consciousness

For the Ukrainian reader, these studies seem, at first glance, far from war-related. But the idea of ​​consciousness as an ALARM system directly intersects with our reality:

• Understanding how the brain processes pain, anxiety, and chronic stress is important for the rehabilitation of military and civilian personnel with PTSD;
• Knowledge of how attention “sticks” to danger and traumatic memories helps to build psychotherapy and training protocols;
• The realization that even “small” animals can have forms of conscious experience strengthens the argument for more humane practices in the military (working with service dogs, drones that imitate birds, etc.) and in the civilian sector.

And finally, in an environment where Ukraine is actively developing its own AI systems for defense and cybersecurity, the question of the boundaries between algorithmic complexity and potential “proto-consciousness” becomes not only theoretical, but also ethical.

Sources

1. SciTechDaily / Ruhr-University Bochum: Scientists Identify the Evolutionary “Purpose” of Consciousness, 2025
2. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Albert Newen, Carlos Montemayor, “Three types of phenomenal consciousness and their functional roles: unfolding the ALARM theory of consciousness”, 2025
3. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Gianmarco Maldarelli, Onur Güntürkün, “Conscious birds”, 2025