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

[Chas]

That's a good summary - except I haven't said we have great evidence for anything. I believe there is some for my view and none for yours.

Therefore, I choose to believe that mind emerges from complexity and that matter has nothing much to do with mind - it's just the hardware.

I agree there's some minimal evidence-- but I disagree with the interpretation of it. When you start with the "knowledge" of something, and work your way back to an explanation, there's a problem with bias.

What, for example, if I already "knew" that God existed? What if I considered it so obvious that I didn't need to prove it existed, but could jump right into the science of seeing how it worked and how it mattered to people. In that case, all the evidence we've been talking about would be taken as evidence in support of the existence of God, or of specific theories about the relationship between God and people.

Mind really isn't that different. I already "know" that mind exists, and that all functioning people have it. All the evidence I begin to collect--brain studies, split-brain studies, drug studies, etc. serves as evidence PRECISELY BECAUSE I have already accepted the existence of minds.

In short, the evidence you are talking about IS evidence-- but not for the existence of mind.

That was utterly off the mark. I'm not talking about evidence for the existence of mind, where did you get that?

Without preconception, I look at the evidence from neuroscience and see that it supports a monist position, not a dualist one.
And when I examine your thesis that matter has some kind of consciousness, I see no evidence for it.