40 2024.09.28 2026.02.23 2026.02.24 article M. Ljubičić (Amenoum)108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatia (completerelativity.org)mljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com Why AI cannot be conscious. computer science ai, machines, consciousness, sentience https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13854315 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits 1 Abstract A discussion on consciousness. The paper provides possible answers to questions about consciousness, mainly what it is and what are the requirements for its emergence. Based on that, the paper concludes that manifestation of real consciousness in artificial systems is unrealistic. Introduction What is consciousness and how does it work? Where does it really come from? Is it emergent or not? So many questions, not many satisfying answers. Humanity always seems to trivialize phenomena it does not know much about. Knowledge can be exploited to serve certain interests. But lack of knowledge can be exploited as well. And humanity is not lacking in the lack of knowledge about consciousness. The beliefs about it are thriving with very questionable assumptions taken for granted. It is conventionally assumed to emerge from increasing complexity of neural networks. It is then assumed that these neural networks don't have to be biological, etc. With a chain-reaction in presumptive reductionism, one eventually comes to the conclusion that consciousness can emerge from an algorithm. How scientific is that conclusion? Is it based on reality or fantasy? Here, this will be discussed. And more. \ch_added Decoupling awareness and consciousness Extreme reductionism can lead to the notion of equivalence between awareness and consciousness, but, in reality, awareness can exist independently of consciousness, so the two are obviously not equivalent, rather can be coupled together. Usually defined as an "easy" problem of consciousness, awareness, represents all the physical mechanisms that one can simulate on a machine, even a deterministic one. These mechanisms usually involve brains and neural networks and are commonly explored by neuroscience, but not a lot is known even about that part of conscious beings, so it cannot be accurately simulated. However, the whole apparatus of action-reaction mechanisms is only conscious when these actions-reactions are experienced, and it's probably wrong to say that it is experienced by the apparatus itself, even though the experience is correlated with it. In other words, an apparatus (or, a simulated apparatus) is, without consciousness, nothing more than the sum of its parts, although it can leave the impression in a conscious observer/user that it is something more. The reason behind this impression is simply the high correlation of certain properties of the apparatus with conscious beings. How does life, or, how do conscious beings arise, on some fundamental level? Well, this can be learnt in the coupling of AI and humans. The assembly of an artificial apparatus and development of AI algorithms that run on it are not spontaneously organized processes (certainly, they are not interpreted as such by humans). This is done by a conscious being (human). Why are there no computers, or no non-conscious brains, in nature? The degree or level of consciousness is the only difference between natural neural networks. AI is not conscious, but one can consider the AI-human coupling as a coupling of a body with consciousness, where AI is extending the abilities of the human but it exclusively represents the "awareness" component in that symbiosis. Human is the "conscious" part, or the soul, that is experiencing it. This is probably how generally soul-body interaction works. Note that everything is completely relative. Humans may not see the coupling of humans with AI as the equivalent to self-organization of entities into something more than the sum (e.g., like self-organization of cells into organs), but reference frames exist where such interpretation may be likely. Thus, any self-organization of entities into something more than the sum of its parts, without involving some degree (level) of consciousness (subconsciousness) in the background, is probably not possible. When the AI apparatus is turned off, the conscious part (human) can live on and it may later couple with another apparatus. The equivalent thing probably happens when human itself dies. What's dying in death events is the coupling. The "awareness" part disintegrates and decays into something much less than the sum of its parts, while the consciousness may never completely die (there's always some "awareness" part to shed) - it only keeps dying until a stable "background" level of coupling is reached, which can be interpreted as some deeper level of consciousness. Obviously, however, different levels of consciousness can be interpreted as different beings, or different identities of being, so it is not absolutely immortal, only relatively. Even when it couples with (or, develops) the equivalent apparatus again, when it can be said it has reincarnated, that apparatus cannot be absolutely the same as the previous one, thus the identity is not absolutely restored. All conscious beings are relatively short-lived (due to relative conservation of identity) and relatively immortal (due to relative loss of identity). Consciousness is always involved in any kind of human organization. It is usually stimulated by one individual or a group of individuals, who may then use others as the "awareness" apparatus. But who or what is stimulating the individual to stimulate the organization? It may be some higher or lower level of consciousness not as strongly coupled or localized to the apparatus usually associated with that individual. Artificial problems and natural solutions Computer science is mathematics. Nothing apart from the thing it is coded to do can emerge from an algorithm, only a simulation of emergence. If one wants consciousness out of an AI, one would have to code it in. And it is impossible to code it in because it is obviously not computable (if anyone believes it is, I challenge her/him to provide the code for the experience of computation). Now, wired computer transistors are a physical thing but they're wired the same no matter what algorithm they're running. Of course, the brain is also physically wired the same no matter what algorithm it runs, however, the brain is conscious regardless of the complexity of that algorithm. Thus, if an artificial machine could be conscious, it would already be conscious by running an algorithm that simply adds 2 and 2. In other words, complexity of an algorithm has nothing to do with consciousness, or its emergence. If an algorithm cannot be conscious, can the machine running it be conscious? Well, it appears, by using conventional transistors, logic, and wiring, it cannot be - regardless of the complexity of wiring, size and number of transistors. Deterministic machines in general probably cannot be conscious on their own. Something is missing. Nondeterminism on its own is unlikely to help either. What is needed may be the coupling of deterministic and quantum phenomena (assuming the quantum part is the carrier of consciousness). However, obviously, one cannot just couple a quantum computer with a deterministic one and expect a conscious system. If increasing complexity of a deterministic machine doesn't lead to emergence of consciousness - at least not on its own, would increasing complexity of a quantum computer do? Based on what can be inferred from biological systems, it seems that consciousness is not a binary state - amount of consciousness varies across species. It is probably proportional to the strength, or complexity, of coupling between the deterministic and quantum phenomena. And strength and complexity of coupling probably correlates with complexity of both. The key to consciousness is in the coupling/entanglement. But a lot of questions remain about the nature and mechanics of that coupling. Humans have already coupled deterministic machines with quantum machines but there is no sign of consciousness or self-awareness. It is either not there, or its amount is insignificant. Another possibility is that the consciousness is there but it is simply introverted, with no means to be expressed externally, in order for us to detect it. If it is there, how does one make it use the deterministic machine to express itself? One probably cannot easily achieve that. Such coupling (which, in biological systems, may be interpreted as part of symbiosis) needs to evolve - it cannot be simply turned on. And it really doesn't help that nothing is known about the quantum part in the coupling associated with biological consciousness. Many still assume there is no quantum part, expecting for AI to become conscious some time in the future. Some even claim it is conscious already. It is not. The type of mistakes LLM's make and their stubborn repetition of same mistakes even when told explicitly what is wrong, make it crystal clear that there is no true understanding nor conscious action here (only simulation). Pure statistics, big dataset, coded abstract logic and simulation of emergent phenomena - that's all what it is. It's blatantly clear that consciousness requires something more than the algorithm, and that something is coupling to life. However, that interpretation makes mainstream reductionists - who stubbornly believe/insist that biological neurons are equivalent to transistors - very uncomfortable, so they continue to ramble about potential consciousness in calculators, even though LLM's represent a very clear evidence that they are wrong. Apart from them, there are others who see interest in "conscious" calculators so they too are seeding confusion. And then there are gullible users who propagate such nebulous claims. Without knowing true nature of consciousness, any coupling is guesswork. Best bet would be to emulate a biological system. But how even to start? We do know a lot about brains but a lot we still do not know, and the quantum part remains mostly guesswork. Can one evolve conscious coupling in a dish, using synthetic materials? Well, certainly not with the amount of guesswork still present. But what is the difference between synthetic and biologic? In nature, the coupling has evolved from simple molecules and chemistry, which evolve from more elementary particles. That's probably where one needs to start to evolve more complex conscious coupling. But can this evolve into something one would not consider biological? Unlikely. Why? Because nature does not discriminate between biotic and abiotic phenomena the same way humans do. In other words, there is no branching in evolution towards more complex conscious abiotic systems on one side and towards more complex conscious biotic systems on the other, there is transformation of coupling from introverted expression towards extroverted expression of consciousness. Humans are the biased ones, interpreting systems as non-living and non-conscious due to absence of extroverted expression of consciousness. Apart from conscious interaction, animals perform non-conscious interactions which are usually interpreted as subconscious and uncontrollable. Therefore, low amount of consciousness is synonymous with deeply subconscious interaction or low amount of externally expressed self-awareness. It is absurd to expect that conscious coupling suddenly appears out of nothing at some point during evolution. Rather, it is some kind of fundamental energy, only elevated from one vertical level to another. Deeper levels become elevated to higher levels, which humans may then interpret as increased self-awareness. Note, again, that this is all relative. From human perspective, any organism operating at the same or similar level as humans do, may be considered conscious, while electro-magnetic interactions of lower complexity (e.g., those of atoms) may be considered as deeply subconscious interactions, so much so that any self-awareness is infinitesimal. But is the human level the peak level of consciousness? From some higher level, human interactions may be considered as deterministic as electro-magnetic interactions are deterministic from our perspective, and humans may be interpreted as non self-aware. We may even be manipulated by some higher level of consciousness just like we manipulate atoms and molecules to build machines. While we do know how to manipulate electro-magnetic interactions we do not know how to elevate the level of consciousness of the collective of such interactions into something more, otherwise we would have created [what we usually interpret as] life already. A [relatively] self-organized collection of atoms into a molecule is something more than the sum of its parts. Apart from electro-magnetic interactions, this molecule can interact chemically with other molecules. One could say that chemistry is just a sum or superposition of more elementary interactions (i.e., electro-magnetic) but that is just an assumption. The knowledge of, so called, elementary particles is incomplete. And even with what is known, no one is modelling chemical interactions as interactions between elementary particles rather as interactions between emergent properties of molecules. Why? Because of the rapid rise in complexity, hard to solve computationally even by using approximations/shortcuts. Most likely, emergence of a molecule is also the emergence of an additional level of consciousness (or, elevation of existing levels). It is conventionally assumed that physical laws are invariant to scale. There is plenty of reason to believe that this scale invariance is relative, not absolute. In fact, I have provided enough logic and evidence for the existence of discrete vertical levels of relative invariance in my works. Molecules can be further organized into proteins, proteins into cells, etc. Again, simulation of interactions doesn't start at some lower level for the same reasons. If each of these levels represents a particular level of consciousness, which is more than the sum of individual micro-conscious entities, then it should have a physical manifestation that is more than simply the sum of lower levels. So what is it? Well, it can be interpreted as something that evolves from lower levels or something that is entangled with lower levels. In any case, it can be represented as a relative superposition of levels. This superposition of the collective then encompasses all other levels of consciousness, albeit perhaps not at the same time. This superposition is then likely manifested as quantum superposition of particular scale. One could now argue that quantum superposition is unstable at room temperature. Yes, quantum superposition of atoms is unstable, but superposition of atoms is not required here, rather the superposition of parts that make the atoms more than the sum of their parts. Temperature is scale relative. There are particles whose temperature is invariant to the temperature (kinetic energy) of atoms. Consciousness on each level (scale) thus represents a quantum superposition of certain scale. Note that it is not necessary for this superposition to be continuously present or infinitely stable. Stable conscious coupling may be a manifestation of periodic establishment of superposition. Consciousness likely has a frequency. In fact, this is probably required for external expression of consciousness (as it can be correlated with brainwaves). The coupling does not have to be stable either. A flock of birds is more than the sum of its parts but only briefly. A biofilm (a collective of microbes in symbiosis) may be a more stable coupling but still apparently not stable enough to be interpreted as an organism by humans. It may, however, be interpreted as an unstable organism, or a potential proto-organism. Evolution is thus required to transform unstable into stable couplings, and this evolution is guided by consciousness at some level. Consciousness, thus, does not emerge from life, it is a requirement for life. It may not be easy to prove that some kind of dualism exists, but one should probably ask for extraordinary evidence that it does not, as sound logic and evidence in favour of dualism do exist, while the non-dualism is a mere assumption based on the abuse of the Occam's razor stemming from biased non-holistic perspectives. Conclusion The phenomenon of consciousness is far from being well understood. So far it has been unequivocally manifested only in complex biological systems. But it should be clear that consciousness is not computable, it is fundamental. Emergent phenomena in nature have never been described by some more elementary phenomena without resorting to approximations and shortcuts. Yet, all emergent phenomena are assumed to be nothing more than the sum of their parts and a superposition of their mutual interaction. The knowledge of, so called, elementary phenomena is incomplete. It is also assumed that known elementary particles are absolutely elementary. Yet, it is well known that this absolutism has always been correlated with limits in observation. Humans may pretend to be almighty and claim that things that cannot be seen by humans do not exist, but reality probably strongly disagrees. All things considered, as the analysis shows, claims of possibility of any kind of elevated real consciousness in organized artificial systems has no basis in science. In other words, AI is the "awareness" part in the AI-human coupling, and while it may be continuously upgraded, the conscious part remains human. Claims of AI consciousness, decoupled from humans, are extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence. We are not almighty gods and thus should not automatically assume that [what we consider is] the simplest explanation is correct. All assumptions stemming from overly reductionistic approaches have been proven false in the past and are being proved false in the present. Isn't it time to accept the fact that nature is holistic and that this holism, in case of conscious beings, implies some kind of dualism? Neural/computational networks may be required for information processing, but its experience lies elsewhere.