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

[pocaracas]

I guess we both agree that the theory needs to mature a bit more until it's to be taken seriously... so I'll reply only to a few things.

Do you mind writing down that equation?
Somehow, I don't think that Shrödinger's equation will have what you think it does... but I need to see it, first.

Is this the fisrt time you hear about it or are you just playing an idiot? It is not this: G(m1m2)/r^2, but it is quite as famous. If you don't know what it is and what's it even about, why do you ask to see it? It makes simply absolutely no sense, because you can't really understand the formula if you have not studied physics. The equation describes how the wave-function evolves. That's enough for our purposes. google it, if you don't believe what I wirte.

I know what the Schrödinger Equation looks like... What I don't know is what the particular Schrödinger's Equation for microtubules looks like.
I even once had to solve it for a Hydrogen atom... yeah, every grad student's dream!
Add a bit of complexity to the system and you need numerical methods to solve it.
But perhaps the few nanometers of the microtubules is enough for them to behave a bit more classically... like Intel processors which are now reaching the limits o lithography with electrical tracks merely 22nm wide... and it seems they have a roadmap where they plan to do the same at 5nm by 2020. Holy cow!
Sure, they do have to take into account some QM for the gate switching and so on, but the tracks are only some 20 atoms wide and conduct electricity.

And the major piece of evidence the proponents of the theory have to show is the effect of anesthetics on some structures within the neurons.

No, that's not the major evidence. You have not understood the article, nor the theory, as I have already told you.

I told you I didn't read past a certain part, didn't I?

inductionist fallscy. (And you have no idea what that means)

No, and I don't care.

Now, Penrose believes in it (and he has his reasons, you can be sure, that go beyond what you say, for the man is not an idiot), an for that reason and the reason that, if that argument were correct, that would, indeed, be one hell of an evidence for their theory, so that's why they start with it.

Just because the man is smart, doesn't mean he's correct. Like I said on day one, he's biased.
He may be correct, to some extent... But the theory is not tested enough to become the mainstream notion.
Let's wait and see.... I anticipate Penrose himself will not see it, if it ever does get there.
Higgs was a bit luckier.