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

[pocaracas]

Anyone claiming that quantum mechanics solves the problem of consciousness is full of it. The initial, obvious problem is that quantum mechanics is already strange enough, to the point that the ACTUAL physicists involved don't even have a consensus of what quantum mechanics means. Worse, we don't understand consciousness either, so essentially they're appealing to a mystery to solve another mystery.

I don't think anyone says the problems are all solved. You do at least accept that looking for links between QM and conscious experience is one of the most promising directions for making progress in this area, yes?

If you wish to describe how the various elements and even chemicals interact within the human body (or, more specifically, the brain... although, some people will claim any neuron can process conscious information and we sort of have those all over), then yes, QM is important.

If you wish to claim that these chemical interactions (and do note that a nervous impulse is composed of ions moving) describe consciousness, then that's a rather large leap, no?
I mean, yes, ultimately, everything tuns through those QM interactions (even my typing on this keyboard as electrons repulse each other so that the matter in my fingers doesn't dissolve into the plastic of the keys), but as a whole, they become intractable and some simplified models are required.
Consciousness as awareness or ability to understand concepts is probably easiest to describe through such macroscopic models. Hence the usual approach which is to assume it's some emergent property of the collective neuron behavior in brains.

Yes, simple chemicals can disable many of these neurons, while allowing a few critical ones to remain active, which is what we'd think of knocked-out, or unconscious. And they must surely act at some QM level... on a lot of neurons at once... leading to the collective behavior of unconsciousness.

Now, doesn't that sound a lot more reasonable than having decision making processes within a single neuron?