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

[Hegel]

yeah, must be the second one...

I am afraid it's both of them.

Philosophy of physics... what an oxymoron...

Yeah ... it's also called the problem of interpretation of QM, something which, among others, Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, among others, were deeply interested in. What non-sense! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretat..._mechanics

Let me see is my QM is still up to notch: what do you think this collapse of wave function is? Which wave function?

So you have not understood the very idea of the theory ... Of the Schrödinger equation of the brain state "orhestrated" by the micro-tubular processes.

Correlation does not imply causation...
oh well...

Of course it does not.
But I never claimed anything like that; this has nothing to do with anything I said. I showed you made the inductionist fallacy.

Indeed it is far from obvious. Still, it's to be expected that an alteration of the nerve cell should lead to an impairment (or improvement) of the neural impulse emission.

Yeah, but why does it impair the mind to the degree of making it loose consciousness? There is nothing obvious in this, and that ruins your whole point.

This reminds me of the model of the Solar System, where the Earth is at the center... So many correct p's and yet....

Gosh .Seriously, you should study the basics of philosophy of science if you want to avoid such fallacies as these.
You CAN FALSIFY this theory. That's what Copernicus did, for Christ's sake.

Ok, manifestly, we're not there yet, but I see no bright future for this theory... I wish all their proponents well and a breath of nice results, but I anticipate no such thing.

I respect your gifts as a soothsayer.

OH OH OH... like I didn't quote what the damn theorem says.... -.-'

Look, my knowledge is not some parrott-references from Wiki, I UNDERSTAND it. You're talking about a theory you don't understand.

Ok, let me explain. Gödel's incompleteness proof and Turing's solution to the halting problem are analogous applications of the diagonal lemma first applied by Cantor in context of transfinite sets. As applied in context of halting problem, it applies obviously to mind as understood as computer, and the Penrose argument is easy to formulate both in context of Gödel's proof and that of Turing-machines.

Why Penrose first applied it in the context of Gödel-proof , is because he wanted to show that mathematician's mind is not simply algorithmic.

So, if you can't see how this is related to mind and is some sort of wooh wooh, you are simply making a complete jerk of your self.

Yes, smart argument, yes...
I can't see how Gödel's theorem is related to the mind?... right... because it's not.

Sure. But perhaps you should first understand a little about logic and how logic is related to mind...

So, how does that apply to the physical mind?

It applies to the mind of hard AI which conceives mind as a ******Turing machine!

Sometimes, you don't need to understand something completely, to intuit that it maybe BS.

Sure. Like nazis "intuited" relativity was part of Jewish plot.
Ignorance rationalized.

Oh no... http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/deep...erview.htm

Ad hitlerium. Deepak the pseudo-science guru believes in quantum mind, so its bs ... Yeah, Hitler was a vegetarian, so ... and so on.
Thats bs.