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

[Chas]

This is precisely where you are making assumptions. You do not know this to be true. Nor do you have any evidence for that claim. You are simply declaring this to be not possible.

Science of the gaps, now, is it?

That's really twisted, benny. You are the one making the claim. You have no basis for your statement about the limits of science.

I declare it's not possible in the same way I declare it's not possible to see fairies. You declare it may be possible because you have faith in science. You've done a good job eliminating "yet" from these statements, but it's still lingering.

No - you are making the assertion that it is not possible without any justification except that it hasn't been done yet.

Pro tip: Every time a scientist has predicted there is no room for advancement, or that all is known, he has been wrong. Every. Single. Time.

This is both a strawman AND a false statement. First, I've never said nobody could ever learn more about qualia. I've said nobody could ever directly access qualia or prove that a given physical system actually had them rather than seeming to.

Not a strawman - you have, in fact, said that there is a limit on what we can learn about qualia.

Second, there have been many times in which science made no advancement-- those times in which scientific ideas were based on false ideas.

I didn't say there weren't areas where no progress was made. Try reading what I actually write.

"Extra"? "unnecessary"? Why? Because you see them as something other than consciousness?

No. Because in this thread, the philosophical argument is made that an entity SEEMING to be conscious is sufficient evidence to believe that it really ils.

Which has precisely nothing to do with anything I've said.

I suspect they are part and parcel with consciousness.
That they are an integral part of what consciousness is.
You have no evidence that they are not.

You can suspect whatever you want. However, until you can actually show that qualia exist empirically, rather than by making philosophical assumptions about physical correlates of consciousness, you are engaged in philosophy, not science.

I know that we experience the thing termed 'qualia'. My point is that there may not be any separate thing as qualia, that it is just an aspect of consciousness.