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

[Chas]

You continue to misunderstand what I've said and you are going in circles.
No, qualia aren't in the brain, they are in the mind. It is minds that experiences, brains are the substrate.

And once again you are objecting to something I didn't frickin' say.
I have neither claimed that my view is true nor that yours is false.
I have stated that the evidence we have supports that mind is dependent on brain and only brain.

Okay, first of all, let me apologize for agitating you. I accept that you have been careful to avoid making positive assertions about things you don't know for sure.

Not so much agitated as just annoyed. I have been careful to make only assertions that I can back up.

Let me say two things here. First, to make sure I understand what you're saying: the brain/mind distinction is one of object/property, unless you accept the possibility of a kind of substance dualism. So instead of saying a brain has qualia, you are saying mind supervenes on the brain and its functions, and once that mind exists, the subjective experience of it is called qualia, right?

Not exactly. I say mind is an emergent phenomenon of complexity of a particular kind. The only example of which we know is the brain. And, yes, qualia is not anything separate from mind, is is just the experience of consciousness.

Second, with regard to evidence. Part of science is the assumption that rules apply generally unless specific requirements are known and met. For example, we assume that an object a billion light-years away is subject to gravity. On the other hand, because I know how a girl gets pregnant, I wouldn't say, "People can get pregnant, and they are material structures, so all material structures may have the capacity for getting pregnant." I consider gravity universal, and pregnancy highly specific.

No, you wouldn't because it is a basic logical error. You can't go from "there exists X" to "for all X", that is an error.

In the case of the evidence you are talking about, there are at least two possibilities: 1) mind is intrinsic to all matter; 2) mind is not intrinsic to all matter. The brain evidence (setting aside philosophical problems) demonstrates that matter is capable of generating minds. It does not identify what specific kinds, structures or functions of matter are required for some kind of subjective experience to exist.

Not just any matter is capable, only matter connected and working at a sufficient level of complexity. In fact, we can't even say that matter is required - just complexity.

It DOES, however, tell us very much about how changes to brain structure and function can affect the CONTENT of our subjective experience.

I wouldn't completely agree with that; changes to the brain can change our qualia and even create experience.