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

[Anomalocaris]

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

There is no such thing as a "type" of thing science is designed to investigate. Science in principle investigate all type of things. What science does do differently from everything else is to insist upon reliability of its own investigation by insisting on rigorous verification of its own results.

If science can verify its results, than science is superior to any other method. If science can not verify its results, then science is still no worse than any other method.

In principle, under no circumstances can any other method be prefer to science if one is concerned with reliability of one's investigative efforts, rather than attempting to uphold that which has no ground to be upheld.

To say something in principle can not be investigated by science is to admit whatever that thing is in principle unverifiable and thus in principle indistinguishable from hellucination, or bullshit.

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.

You have in effect said qualia is indistinguishable from either helluciation or bullshit.

---

What do you mean by "real" in this case? If by "real" you mean that your qualia "exists," I'd say that's yet to be demonstrated.

I mean that there is a subjective experience of what things are like, rather than an absense of it.

And why do you suppose science can not explain, in principle, not only the existence and operating mechanism of subjective experience in general, but why you might have imaged experiencing the particular subjective experience you think you have experienced?