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

[Angrboda]

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.

There is? How do you know this?

You know, when I recall the melody of a favorite song, the sound I remember doesn't occur, well, anywhere - it just seems to be there, both everywhere and nowhere at the same time. And I experience myself as existing a few inches behind my eyes, a point of nothingness, that "sees." Neither of these "experiences" are experiences of a thing having them. Neither are what things are like because no thing that we know of is a thing that has a what it's like. So obviously, these experiences aren't what things are like because there are no things which have these properties of existing nowhere and everywhere, or of seeing where there are no eyes. So something is amiss in your claim that there "is" a subjective experience "of what things are like." I'll accept that you have experiences, but just what exactly an experience is, and what kinds of things have them, what their ontological character is, whether they are "like anything" or not, these are questions you've run roughshod over in order to assume that qualia have ontic character when they may not.