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

[Neo-Scholastic]

My previous posts did account for the differences in scale. The reality is that quantum processes underlie every physical process at every scale. Classical physics is just a technique that bundles together a vast number of quantum events for the sake of simplicity. It just isn't true that classical physics is ontologically correct at some specific scale. QM is true. Classical is a convenient fiction.

---

And your assertion that consciousness is brain chemistry is just that...an unsupported assertion.

You didn't account for the differences in scale, you just stated they existed. You, or anyboy else for that matter, has yet to explain how QM results in phenomenon at macroscopic levels.

I know a cat that begs to differ 50% of the time.

Brains only have physical properties. Minds have intentional properties. The default position is that things with distinct properties are different things. When you try to define one in terms of the other you just beg the question. Saying that brain states are mental states assumes what it attempts to prove. There is no physical difference between a neural net that can pick out a blue and one that can pick out red. Not only do you have no evidence, you don't even have a theory to explain why there is a qualitative difference between the two.

Interactive dualism remains a viable theory because it allows minds to read neural correlates as signs in the same way you can assign different values to the virtually identical looking abacus beads. Moreover QM solves the binding problem of dualist theories. From both a philosophical and scientific perspective, interactive dualism is the better theory. Just because you don't like the implications doesn't give you grounds for dismissing it.