Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[Chas]

Sure it can. We know that matter (us) can be conscious so why not assume it is conscious all the way down? This makes perfect sense.

No, that doesn't make sense. The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of a complex assemblage of matter, not the matter itself.

David Chalmers (I donät agree with his strong AI, though) has discussed of "information spaces" that each consciousness must have. Now, it is reasonable to assume that the consciousness is a product of evolution -- it has evolved from maximally simple information spaces; and as Chalmers and so many other highly intelligent persons argue -- and I fully agree with them -- it is totally reasonable to assume that such space (e.g. one bit per time unit -- try to imagine!) is something that elementary particles actually have.

Again, no - that does not follow. You assume far too much on no evidence.

And if you believe matter is conscious, how can you disbelieve strong AI?

Hamerhoff and Penrose have, btw quite recently (2013) published a new article with new evidence for their Orc-OR theory of consciousness. If they are right, it seems plausible that wherever a wave-fucntion collapses (objective reduction), there is some primitive "consciousness" or proto-consciousness as they call it.

Its not just philosophy: its also real science!

No, that is not science as it is not testable.

As for "God", "Buddha" or universal C. , not just some primitive flickering of quasi-awareness in the emptiness, a Universal Mind consciouss of its self, perhaps something one could access with contemplation -- why not? I don't think its crazy ... you just don't have the "scientific evidence", but that's no counter-evidence.(and this was not inverse burden of proof: I am not arguing FOR anything here)

Yes, you are making a claim for which you have no evidence.