I think /u/bitcloud is saying that consciousness is a physical phenomenon, and needs a physical explanation for how it arises. For example, nuclear energy is a real physical phenonenon. It doesn't exist because of various abstract relations - i.e., simulating a nuclear reactor in a computer doesn't mean you have nuclear energy. We know that matter of a specific kind arranged in a specific way creates nuclear energy.

So is consciousness "real"? Most people think it is. In fact, consciousness is the one thing I can say for certain the universe must contain, because it is only through making sense of qualia that I can conjecture anything about the "world", including that matter exists. Consciousness is epistemologically prior to the concepts we use to describe the physical universe, including brains, computers, transistors, neurons, atoms and quarks.

In physics, we explain phenomena by understanding how fundamental quantities interact to produce it. If new quantities are needed, they are added to the description (e.g., Maxwell needed to introduce electromagnetism), and then it is the job of physics to explain how those quantities relate to each other, and ultimately to unify those different parts.

But we have no idea what arrangement of matter produces consciousness. If strong AI proponents are saying that abstract relationships produce consciousness, that says something incredibly weird about our universe. It means that besides general relativity and quantum mechanics, we need to have a theory of how abstract relationships (e.g., even implemented in dominoes, or maybe just implemented as a program written on a piece of paper) somehow produce the physical phenomenon of consciousness. What do the laws of physics look like if we allow this kind of nonsense?

To folks who take consciousness seriously, that's it's an outlandish "Jesus' face is in my soup" kind of idea.