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

[Neo-Scholastic]

The evidence you cite is for the mind in general and not particular to dualism. You are right to be critical of the lack of demonstrated mechanism for the monist position, but dualism has the same problem with the added burden of location issues and the effect of physical trauma on the mind.

Yes, that's why I made a thread about idealism a couple months back. All our reality is processed as ideas anyway, including ideas about space and time.

I cannot go that far. Since ideas are continually in flux, finding what remains constant between ideas is a philosophical question that demands an answer. I think idealism in this regard stops short of giving a sufficient account of what's going on.

---

Other than misdirection, I'm not clear why people keep bringing physics in to this. Consciousness has only ever been observed/measured/recorded in living creatures with some sort of brain. Fact. That makes this a question for biologists not physicists. Everything else is just misdefinition of terms in an attempt to support supernatural and unfalsifiable speculation.

Because Von Neuman brought consciousness into physics with the orthodox interpretation. As Henry Stapp explains, big things, like biological systems, are made from small things, like atoms. The measurement problem requires an observer that sits outside the physical system in which the wave collapse occurs. The Copenhagen interpretation is a pragmatic approach that glosses over the underlying ontological reality. If you want to understand consciousness you must look to the orthodox interpretation.