An open framework for quantifying awareness across all living organisms. No cortex required. No species excluded. 249 organisms scored. Testable predictions included.
Three variables. Multiply them together. If any one drops to zero, awareness drops to zero. That's the whole formula.
Sensing (S) is how much an organism can detect, both externally and internally. A mantis shrimp with 16 types of color receptors scores higher than a goldfish. A goldfish scores higher than a sponge.
Integration (I) is how well those signals talk to each other. This is the bottleneck. A box jellyfish has 24 sophisticated eyes but four independent processing clusters that barely communicate. Its integration is terrible, so its awareness score is low despite extraordinary sensing.
Unity (U) is whether there's a unified "self" binding it all together. A split-brain patient has two parallel processors that can disagree with each other. Their unity is lower than an intact brain. An organism that passes a mirror test demonstrates that something inside has built a model of "me."
Tier boundaries (Self-Aware, Conscious, Subconscious, Reactive, Minimal) are estimated working thresholds, not empirically derived cutoffs. They are calibrated against observed behavioral evidence and should be revised as data improves. Most S, I, U parameters are scorer estimates, not direct measurements. Confidence levels (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW) indicate how much published data backs each score. This framework is a work in progress.
Because awareness requires all three components working together. Addition would let an organism with incredible sensors but zero integration still score well. That's wrong. A box jellyfish with 24 eyes and no central brain should not score high, and it doesn't, because 0.90 × 0.15 × 0.25 = 3.4%. Meanwhile a honeybee with modest sensors but excellent integration scores 36.8%. Integration is the bottleneck. The formula captures that.
The critical test case: anesthesia versus sleep. Under anesthesia, your sensors still work (S stays high), but integration collapses (I drops to ~0.10) and unity shatters (U drops to ~0.10). Score: near zero. During deep sleep, sensing drops (S goes low), but integration and unity partially persist. Score: small but nonzero. The formula gets this right. Simpler formulas (A = S × I) fail this test.
From E. coli to humans, across 17 taxonomic groups. Deep dives completed for mammals (64), fish (52), birds (51), and insects (48), plus cephalopods, arachnids, crustaceans, plants, fungi, and single-celled organisms.
The standard A = S × I × U plus eight variants including the original SIC, precise with I-squared, meta-awareness, and bias-corrected formulas. All compared side by side.
Human scorers overestimate mammals and underestimate fish, insects, and cephalopods. A bias-corrected formula (F5) adjusts for this. 29 species change tier after correction.
Archer fish, grouper, and cuttlefish scored before self-awareness testing. If studies confirm or deny mirror recognition, those are real predictions. Timestamps in the spreadsheets.
| Organism | S | I | U | % of Human | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human (awake) | 0.85 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 100.0% | Self-Aware |
| Chimpanzee | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 84.5% | Self-Aware |
| Bottlenose dolphin | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 75.8% | Self-Aware |
| Octopus | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.82 | 61.6% | Self-Aware |
| Crow/Raven | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 53.4% | Self-Aware |
| Honeybee | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 48.0% | Conscious |
| Cleaner wrasse | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 27.0% | Conscious |
| Goldfish | 0.50 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 8.7% | Subconscious |
| Box jellyfish | 0.90 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 4.4% | Reactive |
| Oak tree | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.1% | Minimal |
Full database of 117 species available in the Species Database Methodology. Interactive scoring in the Calculator.
The single most important finding from scoring 117 organisms: integration is the bottleneck of awareness, not sensing.
A box jellyfish has 24 camera-type eyes arranged in four clusters. Its sensing score (0.90) is higher than a crow's. But its four rhopalia process visual information independently with almost no cross-talk. Its integration score is 0.15. The result: 4.4% of human awareness, firmly in the Reactive tier. Twenty-four eyes, and it probably experiences less than a honeybee with compound eyes.
Meanwhile, the cleaner wrasse has a tiny brain, modest sensors, and limited sensory modalities. But it recognizes individual fish by face, passes the mirror test within 30 minutes, and conducts contingency experiments by dropping objects near mirrors to test how reflections work. Its integration and unity scores punch far above its brain size. 27% of human awareness. Conscious tier.
Brain size does not predict awareness. Integration does.
This framework does not claim to solve consciousness. It claims to provide a useful, testable, quantitative estimate of awareness that produces rankings consistent with observed behavioral evidence. Several major questions remain open:
How should parameters be measured objectively rather than estimated by scorers? Can gap junction gene counts serve as a proxy for integration? Can behavioral flexibility indices quantify unity? What is the correct normalization: should a crow at 53.4% of human really be interpreted as "more than half as aware as a person," or does the percentage scale compress meaningful differences?
The tier boundaries are working estimates. They will be revised as empirical data accumulates. The predictions (archer fish, grouper, cuttlefish) are timestamped. The framework will be judged by whether those predictions hold.