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

[bennyboy]

-How, non-arbitrarily, can we determine that a physical system has qualia?

By examining the physical system and seeing if it has the right components with the right specification/configuration to be consistent with systems in which we can observe the emergence of qualia.

A useful analogy is analysing engine components in order to calculate the BHP.

Too general.

I want to know, given a specific physical structure, exactly how you are going to know it has qualia. Saying, "Look at the evidence," or "do science" doesn't really answer that question. WHAT are the right components and the right specifrication/configuration? To extend your engine example, let's say you had a new engine with an unexpected noise level, and you wanted to know what was causing it. Is it the way the parts are configured? Is it due to the properties of a particular alloy at a certain temperature? Is it an issue with the software causing mistimings?

---

This and number 2 above are similar. What I think is happening is that the idea and definition of consciousness is being expanded to include every conceivable physical process. If the definition of consciousness includes everything, so to speak, then it can mean nothing.

One of the options I gave in my neuron-pulling experiment was that the distinction was an arbitrary one. There's no specific point at which the deteriorating brain flickers out of qualia existence and into oblivion. Instead, there's an increasing sense by human judges that the thing they're looking at (or thinking about) no longer fulfills their understanding of what it means to be conscious.

But that doesn't mean there isn't something going on-- some fundamental level of non-oblivion that is intrinsic to a brain in deep sleep, or possibly to a non-brain system.

To be given serious consideration and to make a reasonable attempt at discovery and explanation, the 'other minds' problem must be given some boundary. Invoking the photoelectric effect in order to surmise that metallic atoms experience qualia is a bit premature given that we are still struggling with #3 above.

It's premature to assert that qualia supervene on atoms or particles, for sure. However, the basis of information exchange can be found right at that fundamental level, so if consciousness is a function of information processing, it's one of the options that should be sensibly considered.

Don't get me wrong, I love imagination and speculative thinking; however, I disdain when too much merit is given to flights of fancy that attempt to go straight to the core without a means to get there rather than understanding and working within our capabilities to peal back the layers. Keep the speculations at arms length, they might very well be needed as we learn more.

When speculating, I try to compile a full-spectrum list. It is then hoped that the answer is somewhere in there, and that the process of elimination or new information will start shaving off members from the list.

Given that mind arises from a brain, we have a problem-- we are only familiar with qualia as they relate to a functioning or mostly-functioning brain. We cannot isolate substrates and know if they involve qualia. We cannot really use the process of observation to know if, for example, a nerve bundle is associated with a primitive "spark" of consciousness.