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

[Rampant.A.I.]

Not quite...you don't know therefore you have nothing that supports your conviction that mind is an emergent property. In fact, you don't know because your materialist theories are incoherent promissory notes.

Ok, so when you're bouncing back and forth between monism, dualism and pluralism depending on the claim you're trying to advance, you conveniently don't have to provide a single shred of evidence to show your position is valid, let alone the assumptions you pretend to support by your position of the moment?

---

Not quite...you don't know therefore you have nothing that supports your conviction that mind is an emergent property. In fact, you don't know because your materialist theories are incoherent promissory notes.

So you are justified in just making some shit up and saying you're right.

OK, got it.

More accurately, making shit up about making shit up, supported by made-up shit.

---

On the contrary, as many animals display the same sort if consciousness, you haven't explained why it's unnecessary, nor why evolutionary psychology is highly accurate at explaining behavior.

Simply, you are arguing that less complex algorithms are better adaptations to the environment

I don't think you're on the same page as me with regard to how the term consciousness is being used. I'm talking about the existence, rather than the non-existence of qualia.

Given that qualia are only the subjective awareness of the "algorithms" you're talking about, the elephant in the room isn't about comparative bioligy-- it's about why qualia exist rather than not-- since there's no good reason a brain (or any other machine) couldn't process any amount of information without having subjective experience about it.

So it boils down to personal incredulity supporting a position lacking evidence, because it supports a position you prefer.