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

[Chas]

Okay, Chas. That's clearly stated now. It seems related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_...ion_theory

I disagree with the way you place the burden of evidence-- that anything that has input, complex processing and outputs should be assumed to experience qualia, and that doubters need to prove the negative. There are too many "there's no reason to believe not X. . . " statements in there, when you've used "there's no reason to believe X. . ." with the various possibilities I suggested.

Everyone has the burden of evidence. I didn't say that 'anything' can be assumed to experience qualia, only that which is conscious.

There are exactly as many 'no reason to believe' statements there as necessary, since those are possibilities against which there is no evidence.

I think the reason not to believe machines experience qualia is that they aren't alive,

What? No élan vital?

and that their "thinking" consists of both different hardware and software than ours.

That's rather anthropocentric. So, there can be no alien consciousness? No other self-aware intelligence in the entire cosmos?

Until we have a good physical theory of mind, I don't think reducing billions of cells and a gazillion molecules down to a three-stage model, interchangeable by any structure that can do the processing, can reasonably be accepted as less conjectural than any other idea about the brain/mind relationship.

I'm not actually trying to reduce it to a three-stage model - that was just echoing your previous intelligent matter model.

I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence that it is not possible.