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

[bennyboy]

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.

Sure I do. I've specified that by "science" I'm referring to the physical sciences. In order to study something in science, you have to show that it has a physical existence-- either as an object, or as a property of objects. So far, nobody has defined qualia precisely, or even shown them to exist.

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

No, I'm making the assertion based on the nature of qualia, and on the type of things which science is designed to investigate.

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

If I said it, go ahead and quote it.

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

You said, " Every time a scientist has predicted there is no room for advancement, or that all is known, he has been wrong. Every. Single. Time."

Let me go on record now by announcing formally that I predict that there is no room for advancement in the field of chicken-gut divining.

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.

Consciousness?

I would agree that qualia are, by definition, an aspect of consciousness. But then I'd realize that you are using a definition of consciousness that has already been repurposed to fit into the physical monist world view: states of brain function, fMRI scans, etc. and not the subjective experience that consciousness really refers to.