For me there is no bigger step between to wonder about how conscience
arises from a universe made by atoms in a Newtonian universe, particles
in a quantum universe, quarks in a quantum relativistic universe and
finally, superstring/n-branes in a 11 dimensional universe for one side
and, on the other side, to wonder about how SAS in a complex enough
mathematical structure can have a sense of conscience.

##
Advertising

Conscience has evolutionary advantages in biological terms, and probably
the conscience will emerge, with time, in any description in which the
rules permit a replication-with-variations/selection and where one
objects feeds from others. It doesn't matter if the description is made
of n-branes in 11 dimensional spaces or in any other
mathematical/algorithmical construct.
These self aware structures in their particular space-time will describe
trajectories in which a superintelligent and supradimensional observer
could see, inside the SAS, some components: neurons, or alike, that
shows signs of troughs about themselves and the rest of their world in a
way that interactions between SAS will depend on the changes of their
brains -or something like brains-. This is the most that an external
observer can experience about the conscience of other beings. These
beings will think, so they will exist -and they will think that they
exist, that is crucial - . That must be true either in our "physical"
world or the world of a geometrical figure in a n-dimensional spacetime,
or in a computer simulation defined by a complex enough algorithm (These
three alternative ways of describing universes may be isomorphic, being
the first a particular case or not. The computability of our universe
doesn't matter for this question).
So the mathematical existence, when SAS are possible inside the
mathematical formulation, implies existence (the expression "physical
existence" may be a redundancy)
But, for these mathematical descriptions to exist, it is necessary the
existence of being with a higher dimensionality and intelligence that
formulate these mathematical descriptions? That is: every mathematical
object does exist outside of any conscience? The issue is not to
question that "mathematical existence (with SAS) implies physical
existence", (according with the above arguments it is equivalent). The
question is the mathematical existence itself.