Researchers at the University of California, Riverside (USA) have presented a theoretical paper in which they put forward a hypothesis: conscious perception and, essentially, consciousness itself need not be grounded in carbon-based biology. If life is capable of evolving on the basis of fundamentally different chemistry — other amino acids, solvents, or even crystalline structures — then intelligence may exist in forms radically different from human ones. This is reported by RBC-Ukraine, citing the university's publication. The authors emphasize that their work is of a hypothetical-theoretical nature and does not constitute experimental evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; however, it offers a new conceptual framework for rethinking the boundaries of the possible.
"Substrate Flexibility": the Key Concept of the Theory
The proposed model rests on the notion of "substrate flexibility." According to this principle, the same function or property can be realized through different materials and physical media. The scientists offer clear everyday analogies: a cup performs its role regardless of whether it is made of glass, ceramic, or plastic; a book exists simultaneously in paper and digital form. Transposed to the biological level, this argument means that the "function of consciousness" is not tied to a single possible "material" — the neurons of a carbon-based organism. As yet another comparison, the researchers use flight: an eagle, a bat, and an insect rise into the air using entirely different mechanisms — the flapping of a wing, an elastic membrane, or the high-frequency vibration of tiny wings — yet the result remains the same. Likewise, they argue, consciousness may arise through different pathways and does not necessarily require a human brain or even a biological organism as such.
Astronomical Scales and Alternative Chemistry
The authors build several arguments in favor of the idea that forms of intelligence unlike those on Earth may have formed in the Universe. The first is astronomical scale: the observable Universe contains about one trillion galaxies, each of which holds billions of planets whose conditions differ substantially from Earth's. The second argument concerns alternative chemistry: complex structures and, potentially, information carriers may form on the basis of other amino acids, other solvents, or crystalline elements, opening up room for biochemistry not reducible to carbon and water. The third argument is the evolutionary diversity already observable on Earth: the nervous systems of octopuses, bees, and mammals process information in fundamentally different ways, which, in the researchers' words, demonstrates the ingenuity of evolution and points to the multiplicity of possible "processing" architectures. On the basis of these considerations, the authors allow that the Universe may have hosted no fewer than a thousand highly developed exoplanetary civilizations, although this figure is of an estimative and speculative nature.
Critique of "Terracentrism" and the Question of Artificial Consciousness
The scientists introduce into the discourse the term "terracentrism" — the assumption that consciousness is possible only in life forms similar to those on Earth. In their view, this is a limited conception, analogous to the earlier geocentric model, according to which Earth occupied a special, central place in the Universe. Abandoning such a worldview, the authors argue, expands search strategies in astrobiology and the philosophy of mind. A separate section of the work is devoted to artificial intelligence: the researchers have not reached a consensus on whether modern AI possesses consciousness in the strict sense, but they allow that, in the long term, consciousness may emerge in artificial systems that have no biological nature. This, in their logic, once again confirms the principle of "substrate flexibility": if intelligence is not tied to a specific material, its appearance in silicon or hybrid architectures is not an anomaly.
Contradictory Data
An analysis of the media coverage of the work reveals a significant discrepancy in wording. The headline of the RBC-Ukraine publication claims that the scientists "proved that consciousness does not require biology," which implies the existence of experimental or mathematical proof. However, both the body of the article and the description of the study speak of a proposed hypothesis and a theoretical model, not of a proven fact. Similarly, the outlet Gazeta.ru (June 26, 2026) presents the topic as scientists' account of "how greatly aliens may differ from humans," which is closer to a description of theoretical limits than to a statement of a proven fact. Thus, in the public sphere two interpretations coexist: a journalistic one, using the rhetorical "proved" to attract attention, and an academic one, in which the work is positioned as a conceptual hypothesis requiring further verification. It is important for the reader to distinguish these levels: at present, no experimental study has confirmed the existence of non-biological consciousness, and the proposed model remains a subject of theoretical discussion.
Significance of the Work for Further Research
Despite its hypothetical status, the conceptual framework proposed by the California scientists has practical significance for several scientific fields. First, it may influence the design of search strategies for SETI and astrobiological missions: if consciousness is not tied to carbon biochemistry, the criteria for searching for biosignatures and technosignatures need to be expanded. Second, the work stimulates interdisciplinary dialogue between the philosophy of mind, computer science, chemistry, and astrophysics, offering a common language — "substrate flexibility" — for discussing the nature of intelligence. Third, the assumption that consciousness may arise in artificial systems brings to the fore ethical and legal questions that in 2026 are already actively discussed in the context of the development of large language models and agentic AI systems. The authors emphasize that their goal is not a sensational claim, but an expansion of the space of admissible hypotheses, so that science does not confine itself to the narrow, though intuitively familiar, idea that intelligence is possible only "the way it is for us."
