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

[bennyboy]

I'm sorry you value evidence so little.

Who says I don't value evidence? I just don't agree that the evidence says what you think it says. The evidence shows that some physical systems have qualia associated with them, and that the nature of the qualia is determined by the structure or function of the systems. This is not the same as establishing the existence, vs. the complete non-existence, of maximally simple (i.e. atomic) qualia.

It does not demonstrate that all systems of similar complexity have associated qualia-- that is a non sequitur. Nor does it demonstrate upon which stratum the most elemental essence of mind supervenes-- we have no experimental ability to isolate substrata and know whether there is some primitive qualia associated with them or not. Given any gross system upon which mind supervenes, how would you establish that the mind is not rather supervenient on that systems components, rather than on the function of the system as a whole?

What is absurd is considering one or two neurons to be sufficiently complex to host 'awareness'.

Why is it absurd? Some neurons respond to multiple inputs, and have multiple outputs. They also grow new dendrites in response to chemical trails in their environment-- something I would say could be categorized as a behavior. Are you suggesting or outright saying that single-celled organisms are purely mechanical, and have no qualia associated with them at all? How could you know this, and on what basis could you assume it?

It appears there is a threshold and a scale. That sort of thing is quite common in nature.

This is a possibility to be sure. But is there a non-arbitrary threshold or position on a scale at which mind ultimately collapses into oblivion, or is it an arbitrary semantic issue: "At this point, we deem the mental activity sufficiently minor to say that it should not be recognized as mental activity at all." I think you're going to have a very hard time showing that your complexity idea isn't a product of anthropomorphic assumption rather than solid evidence.