User blog comment:Edwin Shade/My Hierarchy Of Mathematical Understanding/@comment-32213734-20180111204545

In my opinion, self-awareness, consciousness in "strong sense" is not real.

That is there are two types of objects:

1) Real things (particles, atoms, rocks, stars, planets, living beings).

2) Mythical fictional things (gods, angels, demons, paradise, hell, ghosts).

Self-awareness in "strong sense" is closer to the 2nd type. Because it is only known from the words, whereas real things are known from scientific method: observations, hypothesis testing.

Here are more arguments:

It is unclear, what is self-awareness physically; there are logically possible phylosophical theories, where self-awareness exists without matter; in my opinion, it is not known, whether self-awareness exists; self-awareness was not ever observed; scientific picture of reality does not lose anything, if we imagine that there is simply no self-awareness; Occam's razor: there is no need to involve self-awareness to explain any scientific facts; there is no way to observe self-awareness using physical instruments and know that it is self-awareness, not something else; existing of self-awareness does not fit Popperian criterion: there is no way to experimentally prove that the object is not self-aware, so this is unscientific; zombie argument: we cannot distinct self-aware object from the same not self-aware object; it is not possible to distinct one mental state form another. Also, there are such things as problem of other minds and all that.

So, consciousness is just a myth.

As for the notion of existing in "weak sense", I think, that particle can "feel" presence of another particle (because they ineract), so, this particle "knows" that that another particle exists. About self-awareness in "weak sense" I have nothing to write, since I do not really understand this.