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

[bennyboy]

Let's talk about this.

If mind is emergent on complexity, then the question is: complexity of what? Everything in the universe is related. And the universe includes all brains, so the complexity of the universe is necessarily greater than that of all brains. This indicates a possibility (or in this case semantic necessity) of a universal consciousness.

Why is it that some collections of matter are thought of as singular agents with many parts, and others are thought of as just a bunch of stuff happening? Why are the energetic interactions between brain cells considered more complex than those between galaxies?

Non sequitur, equivocation.
To equate the local complexity of a brain with the complexity of all brains is truly fallacious.

Latin debatey words aren't a good substitution for either ideas or evidence. It has been said that mind is supervenient on complexity. I've pointed out that the universe is more complex than a brain. However, this idea has been met with what appears to be special pleading: "No no no. Only the LOCAL complexity of the brain spawns qualia." Therefore, the assumption that mind supervenes on complexity must have been either incorrect or incomplete.

I think what you meant to say is that the mind supervenes on a very special kind of complexity. But what, pray tell, might be the exact nature of complexity required? Given that the brain is the ONLY entity known to have qualia, how are we to determine what exact properties of the brain are responsible, and which are incidental? Does qualia require:
-exactly and only the brain, including all its organic structures, the exact same neurotransmitters, etc?
-only a special relationship of information about the universe-- specifically, encoded past states of the environment being compared with present states?
-only the ability to receive information from the "outside" universe?

The first of these is specific to the brain, the second is specific to any complex processing of data which is self-referential over time, and the last is intrinsic to all matter. If the first is true, qualia cannot generalize to non-brains no matter how complex-- for example very complex computer systems. If the second is true, qualia generalizes to all structures which interact with the universe in a particular way. In the third, qualia generalizes to all matter. So tell me-- in what way has any scientist established control over these variables to such a degree that you are confident that system X may be said to experience qualia, and system Y not so?

---

Fallacy of composition. Just because my heart pumps blood does not mean that my body as a whole pumps blood.

Just because ________ (any part or function of the brain) generates qualia doesn't mean that the brain as a whole generates qualia.

Organic molecules and cells are more complex than collections of stars because of the atomic, molecular, and cellular interactions required to produce a brain.

No. The complexity of the parent node is always at least as great as the sum of its child nodes. And the human brain is contained IN a solar system, a galaxy, and ultimately the universe. Therefore, all of those things are more complex than a brain. If you want to establish a local effect, you'll have to demonstrate that it is a local property of the brain which is resposible for the existence of qualia-- specifically, that qualia is not a property of all exchanges of information.