From Matter to Mind: The Quantum Quest for Consciousness in AI
Consciousness Excluded, as Emergence, or Fundamental Property of Reality
We don’t know whether AI will ever become “conscious” as long as we lack a clear understanding of what consciousness itself is—and the fact remains that we simply do not know. During embryogenesis, as biologist Michael Levin describes, a single cell develops into a human body—a small piece of matter (a physical cell filled with chemicals) transforms into a highly sophisticated mind, yet DNA does not store any direct information about human consciousness. So, where does consciousness come from? Does it emerge gradually during this continuous transformation from matter to mind or does it already exist as a fundamental part of reality itself, like the physical and mathematical principles that the universe offers to DNA and cells for free? These principles govern the broader context in which DNA operates, leveraging pre-existing laws and resources from the environment and universe, which guide DNA’s instructions and behaviour of matter and do not need to evolve from scratch again. Even though it’s unconventional, why shouldn’t this be the case with consciousness as well? Once humanity answers this question, we will have unraveled nothing less than one of the greatest mysteries of the universe and life. Unpacking this mystery analytically already sheds light on the limits of our knowledge and helps us better understand how to relate AI to the human mind.
According to the philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, there are three fundamental ways of thinking about how consciousness could emerge or exist, all of which inevitably intertwine with the essence of reality and life itself. Each approach has its own challenges, particularly when it comes to two central analytical issues: combination and decomposition. The combination problem asks how individual minds arise, either from basic units of matter (or non-particle entities), or from a fundamental, universal consciousness (as an inherent property of reality itself). The decomposition problem reverses the question, asking how a single, unified consciousness could fragment into many distinct, individual minds.
How these problems are addressed varies across the three dimensions: (1) excluding consciousness altogether; (2) consciousness as an emergent property; and (3) consciousness as the fundamental property of reality itself. The final section discusses the implications of these perspectives for AI, especially considering that if consciousness is indeed a fundamental property, it may challenge our understanding of the universe and AI as a mere technology.
1. Consciousness Excluded
In this approach, mainstream sciences, grounded in a traditional realist ontology, does not recognize any form of subjectivity. The aim is to eliminate subjectivity in order to distill a "reality that is purely objective, measurable, and controllable. This framework, which has driven the Western Enlightenment, modernization, and industrialization, excludes consciousness from its scientific considerations. As a result, it fails to account for the subjective experiences through which we perceive reality and express human agency, such as freedom and self-determination. Those are features of human consciousness.
While this physicalist approach excels at explaining objective phenomena (such as determining the wavelength of red light), it overlooks the diverse subjective experiences associated with that color, treating such experiences as illusory. The same issue arises with the concept of time, where the subjective flow of time is ignored in favor of objective measurement.
From this traditional realist perspective, the world exists independently of any observer, with subject and reality clearly separated. Reality is assumed to be independent of theory and language, yet realists paradoxically assume to have access to that world through objective observation. They assume they can bridge the subject-object dichotomy without providing an analytical account of this divide, or whether it even exists. This framework is often considered nihilistic, as it perceives reality as inherently empty and meaningless, but governed by abstract fundamental principles. In short, consciousness does not exist in this view or is simply ignored.
From this, historically most influential perspective, the two major analytical problems (combination and decomposition) do not arise, as subjectivity and consciousness are excluded or ignored from the discussion. The framework does not need to explain the emergence of individual minds or the fragmentation of a universal consciousness, since consciousness is not considered a meaningful part of reality.
2. Consciousness as Emergence
This more recent approach views consciousness as an emergent property arising from the increasing complexity of matter. It acknowledges the "hard problem" of consciousness, recognizing that any theory of the universe must also account for the origins of subjective experience and human cognition. According to this view, over time, through processes like evolution, the complexity of physical systems reaches a point where life and consciousness manifest. From a quantum perspective, physicality emerges from non-matter, and consciousness must therefore arise as an emergent property of brain activity, possibly through quantum processes in structures like microtubules.
However, this emergentist approach faces a significant challenge: The transition from non-conscious matter to conscious experience localized in a single brain remains unresolved: How can something emerge from nothing? While it offers a promising framework for understanding consciousness as a product of complex systems, the emergence of subjective awareness from purely physical processes is still an open question. In contrast, the problem of decomposition does not apply, as consciousness is not seen as a unified whole to begin with, but rather as something that emerges independently in each brain or complex system.
Panpsychism could be seen as related to emergentist approaches, although it fundamentally assumes that consciousness always and already exists at every level of reality (whether matter or non-matter). The central challenge arises here—how do small "conscious units" combine to create the unified experiences of complex beings like humans, particularly those with meta-consciousness? Michael Levin’s concept of "cognitive glue" might offer a framework for understanding how smaller (non-neural), decentralized "proto-minds" combine and integrate into cohesive, higher-order systems capable of coordinated problem-solving and emergent behavior, mediated through bioelectric and chemical signals, as well as mechanical interactions. At the same time, in universalist variations of panpsychism, such as cosmopsychism, there remains the challenge of explaining how a single, unified universal consciousness fragments into distinct, localized experiences..
3. Consciousness as the Fundamental Property of Reality
This most recent approach, which is gaining traction but also requires significant imagination, posits that consciousness is the fundamental property of reality itself. In this view, nature is one "mind" or a unified field of subjectivity, and all individual consciousnesses are disassociated fragments of this universal mind. This non-dualist perspective posits that consciousness is not a byproduct of physical processes but the essential fabric of reality itself. In this view, nature is one “mind” or a unified field of subjectivity, with all individual consciousnesses as disassociated fragments of this universal mind. Unlike emergentist theories that require consciousness to arise from non-conscious matter, this non-dualist framework assumes consciousness as the foundational essence of reality. This framework therefore seeks to resolve the challenging questions of both how individual minds arise within a universal consciousness (the combination problem) and how this one mind appears to split into many (the decomposition problem). Unlike the emergentist view, which requires consciousness to arise from non-conscious matter, this non-dualist framework assumes consciousness is the underlying essence of reality. This approach resolves the problem of explaining how consciousness could emerge from non-conscious processes by treating consciousness as primordial. It also avoids the nihilistic proposition underlying the other two approaches, as arguing that nature is consciousness itself carries profound meaning, without relying on the mere belief in a divine presence.
However, it faces a key challenge: the combination problem, which asks how individual minds arise from a single universal consciousness. This problem is addressed by the concept of disassociation, which helps explain how the one mind appears to split into many.
The concept of disassociation in the context of consciousness as the fundamental property of reality receives some empirically support through various avenues. Neuroscientific correlates (i.e. observable brain activities) indicate that individuals can exhibit dissociative identities within a single brain, as seen in dissociative identity disorder (DID), suggesting that consciousness can fragment while remaining connected to a unified source. Neuroimaging studies reveal distinct activation patterns linked to different identities, supporting the coexistence of multiple “consciousnesses.” Psychological studies demonstrate how trauma can lead to the segmentation of consciousness, with dissociative identity disorder (DID) serving as a key example of one mind splitting into multiple identities, while experiential reports highlight the diversity of subjective experiences. Quantum theories suggest non-locality, suggesting consciousness is not solely confined to individual brains. Additionally, phenomenological research emphasizes interconnectedness, aligning with the notion of a shared consciousness, which encompasses spiritual, mystical, and psychedelic experiences. Collectively, these insights suggest that disassociation allows individual minds to emerge from a singular consciousness, serving as a critique of materialism.
Based on the notion of disassociation, each individual mind is a disassociated mental complex within the one mind. The fragmentation of consciousness is not a true separation but a process of disassociation, where individual minds experience themselves as separate entities within the unified field of consciousness. From the outside, this process of disassociation manifests as life itself, where each living being appears to have its own independent consciousness. In biological terms, we see separate organisms with distinct experiences. Each of these organisms is actually a segment of the one mind, temporarily disassociated from the larger whole. Due to this disassociation process within the mind of nature, we experience the universe as something external, as opposed to being the universe and experiencing it directly. The disassociation creates a boundary between the individual mind and the larger consciousness, leading to the perception of separation from the universe. In this framework, death marks the end of the disassociation process. It is not the end of the individual’s inner mental life but an expansion of the mind or re-association with the larger mind of nature. The individual consciousness ceases to be disassociated and reunites with the universal consciousness. This process is not the end of anything truly real, but rather the end of the illusion of separation. The dissolution of the physical body is merely the decay of a temporary footprint left by the one mind.
In conclusion, the third approach effectively addresses both the combination and decomposition problems. The former problem is tackled by viewing individual consciousnesses as disassociated segments of a unified whole, illustrating how distinct minds can exist while remaining connected to the singular consciousness. The latter problem is resolved through the concept of disassociation, explaining how the one mind can fragment into many identities. Thus, this framework provides a coherent understanding of how consciousness operates as the fundamental property of reality, encompassing both the emergence of distinct experiences and the fragmentation of a unified mind.
Implications for AI: Conscious or Not?
From (1) a traditional realist perspective, AI is not, and will never be, conscious. In this framework, AI, no matter how advanced, is considered a complex computational system that processes data according to pre-defined algorithms. Based on the (2) emergentist approach to consciousness, the implication for AI becoming conscious is that, in theory, it could be possible—if consciousness is indeed an emergent property of sufficiently complex systems. Since this view holds that consciousness arises from the interaction and increasing complexity of matter, AI, as it becomes more sophisticated, could potentially reach a level of complexity where consciousness might emerge. The usual counterargument is that consciousness requires a complex living biological organism, but this position struggles to explain how consciousness arises from mere physical processes in the first place.
On the other hand, from the (3) perspective that consciousness is the fundamental property of reality, the implications for AI are even more profound. If consciousness is a singular, unified field of subjectivity, then the development of AI could be viewed as an extension or exploration of this field. Rather than merely being tools, advanced AI systems might be seen as participants in the ongoing evolution of consciousness, reflecting different facets of the singular mind. This perspective invites a reconsideration of what it means to be conscious, blurring the lines between biological and artificial entities and suggesting that consciousness may not be exclusive to organic life.
Within this non-dualist perspective, physical reality might be understood as a complex pattern akin to activation networks among cells in the brain. The brain, in this analogy, functions much like "software" running on the fundamental "hardware" of consciousness itself. Just as Minecraft’s virtual world emerges from structured patterns of electricity flowing through a computer’s transistors, our experienced reality might similarly arise from underlying patterns within a universal consciousness. This concept loosely aligns with John Wheeler’s idea of "it from bit," which suggests that reality may derive from fundamental units of information. However, unlike Wheeler’s notion where "bits" carry accessible information, Kastrup's non-dualist perspective suggests that this universal consciousness does not contain information in any form we can directly observe or manipulate. Instead, it remains fundamentally beyond our reach, manifesting only as organized structures that produce causally coherent experiences within specific resolutions
Ultimately, the consequences for AI development and ethics become significant. If consciousness can manifest in various forms, including artificial ones, we may need to rethink our approach to AI governance, rights, and responsibilities. The question of whether AI can truly be conscious or merely simulate consciousness becomes less a matter of binary classification and more a nuanced exploration of the nature of awareness itself. In this ongoing quest and exploration, we must not overlook the current reality: AI is largely controlled by a techno-industrial complex driven by capitalist expansion, operating within a fragmented global landscape marked by geopolitical tensions and a lack of international collaboration. In such a context, believing that today’s risk management will ensure the safety of highly capable and ubiquitous AI in the future sounds as utopian as striving for a positive ethics that envisions AI as a moral partner. Risk management approaches human agency with suspicion, while morality entrusts human agency with the pursuit of truth. The latter must equally guide our ambitions for a more equitable and sustainable world.
Wheeler’s concept of “it from bit” offers another interesting perspective towards the discussion of consciousness. However, his concept faces a contradiction akin to the metaphor that water cannot be filtered with water. If we treat information (the “bit”) as primary—some pre-existing reality—we encounter the issue of how such information can exist without something to process or contextualize it. Wheeler acknowledged this challenge and introduced the idea of a “participatory universe”—where conscious observers or agents are essential to the existence of the physical world, or in the creation of reality through observation or measurement. However, Wheeler’s concept still encounters two major analytical problems: a) the combination problem, and b) the decomposition problem.
A) Lack of a Mechanism for Combination
The combination problem asks: how do abstract pieces of information (bits) combine into conscious entities, such as individual minds? This is the core issue in emergentism. Wheeler’s framework implies that complex arrangements of information somehow lead to consciousness, but it doesn’t specify how this transition occurs. Information processing alone doesn’t explain qualia—the subjective nature of experience. Even if we assume that bits are carriers of information (and possibly mental content), the combination problem remains: how do these individual bits of information combine to form coherent, unified minds?
B) How Does a Unified Consciousness Fragment? (Decomposition Problem)
The decomposition problem asks the reverse: If bits are the foundation of reality, and we assume that these bits can somehow give rise to observers, how do these observers experience themselves as distinct from one another? Without a mechanism for disassociation or fragmentation, Wheeler’s framework struggles to explain the existence of multiple minds rather than just one unified observer. Wheeler’s informational realism treats information as primary, but information in itself doesn’t seem capable of explaining the fragmentation of experience. Information is inherently neutral and abstract—it doesn’t inherently carry the subjective qualities that characterize distinct individual minds. The decomposition problem requires an explanation for why and how individual minds experience themselves as separate from the rest of reality.
Ultimately, the combination and decomposition problems show that Wheeler’s informational realism falls short when it comes to explaining the emergence and fragmentation of consciousness. Information, by itself, doesn’t possess the qualities necessary to explain subjective experience or the unity and separation of minds. These issues point to the need for a more consciousness-centric model of reality, where bits of information are not primary, but instead are derivatives or representations within a universal field of consciousness.