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

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's rather Teilhard de Chardin.

[Confused Ape]

[Ben Davis]

In the sense that we are all part of the larger Cosmos, perhaps analogous to the cells that comprise one brain, it seems at least that something like a Universal Conscious or Intelligence can be made into an intelligible framework... no?

No. Mind/consciousness/self-awareness (or whatever appropriate term you want to use here) is a product of brains. Brains are a network of interacting components so at very least it would be necessary to demonstrate the existence of the 'Universal network' before we could start hypothesising about the nature of its resultant interactions.

Everything else is baseless conjecture.

[Whateverist]

A lot of times I hear terms such as these thrown around in the context of some quasi-religious, pseudoscientific assertion about telepathy or the placebo effect or the run-of-the-mill con-artist masquerading as a "card-reader" or "healer." I'm not really interested in these silly charlatans. I want to talk about the idea of Universal Conscious or Intelligence in a philosophical context, as a notion that logically proceeds from the realization that there really isn't an external world that is fundamentally separate from the mind. That is because the mind is itself a product of the external world, just another feature that arose from atomic interactions. In the sense that we are all part of the larger Cosmos, perhaps analogous to the cells that comprise one brain, it seems at least that something like a Universal Conscious or Intelligence can be made into an intelligible framework... no?

Do you have in mind some sort of centralized mega-entity comprising us all? If so, do you think that it has intentions and volition? I don't personally believe so in either case.

IMO there may be a universal substrate to each individual's consciousness. But it would be universal in a topological/thematic sense, not in a linked/collaborative way.

[Hegel]

A lot of times I hear terms such as these thrown around in the context of some quasi-religious, pseudoscientific assertion about telepathy or the placebo effect or the run-of-the-mill con-artist masquerading as a "card-reader" or "healer." I'm not really interested in these silly charlatans. I want to talk about the idea of Universal Conscious or Intelligence in a philosophical context, as a notion that logically proceeds from the realization that there really isn't an external world that is fundamentally separate from the mind. That is because the mind is itself a product of the external world, just another feature that arose from atomic interactions. In the sense that we are all part of the larger Cosmos, perhaps analogous to the cells that comprise one brain, it seems at least that something like a Universal Conscious or Intelligence can be made into an intelligible framework... no?

Sure it can. We know that matter (us) can be conscious so why not assume it is conscious all the way down? This makes perfect sense.
David Chalmers (I donät agree with his strong AI, though) has discussed of "information spaces" that each consciousness must have. Now, it is reasonable to assume that the consciousness is a product of evolution -- it has evolved from maximally simple information spaces; and as Chalmers and so many other highly intelligent persons argue -- and I fully agree with them -- it is totally reasonable to assume that such space (e.g. one bit per time unit -- try to imagine!) is something that elementary particles actually have.

Hamerhoff and Penrose have, btw quite recently (2013) published a new article with new evidence for their Orc-OR theory of consciousness. If they are right, it seems plausible that wherever a wave-fucntion collapses (objective reduction), there is some primitive "consciousness" or proto-consciousness as they call it.

Its not just philosophy: its also real science!

As for "God", "Buddha" or universal C. , not just some primitive flickering of quasi-awareness in the emptiness, a Universal Mind consciouss of its self, perhaps something one could access with contemplation -- why not? I don't think its crazy ... you just don't have the "scientific evidence", but that's no counter-evidence.(and this was not inverse burden of proof: I am not arguing FOR anything here)

---

Do you have in mind some sort of centralized mega-entity comprising us all? If so, do you think that it has intentions and volition? I don't personally believe so in either case.

IMO there may be a universal substrate to each individual's consciousness. But it would be universal in a topological/thematic sense, not in a linked/collaborative way.

I think the idea was simply to assume that materialism (as the claim that matter can subsist without consciousness) might be false view ... such "idealism" does not imply any such view you're talking about ... you can just think universal consciousness like you think universal matter, as an atribute (as SPinoza called it) of the substance or even the substance as such. That view does not imply that it is some mega-entity -- that's theism (as general term including pantheism, deism, etc) The "topological/thematic sense" you're referring is, I guess, the truth in some sense any way, even from materialist viewpoint, but I might not get what you're aiming at with that expression.

[Chas]

Sure it can. We know that matter (us) can be conscious so why not assume it is conscious all the way down? This makes perfect sense.

No, that doesn't make sense. The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of a complex assemblage of matter, not the matter itself.

David Chalmers (I donät agree with his strong AI, though) has discussed of "information spaces" that each consciousness must have. Now, it is reasonable to assume that the consciousness is a product of evolution -- it has evolved from maximally simple information spaces; and as Chalmers and so many other highly intelligent persons argue -- and I fully agree with them -- it is totally reasonable to assume that such space (e.g. one bit per time unit -- try to imagine!) is something that elementary particles actually have.

Again, no - that does not follow. You assume far too much on no evidence.

And if you believe matter is conscious, how can you disbelieve strong AI?

Hamerhoff and Penrose have, btw quite recently (2013) published a new article with new evidence for their Orc-OR theory of consciousness. If they are right, it seems plausible that wherever a wave-fucntion collapses (objective reduction), there is some primitive "consciousness" or proto-consciousness as they call it.

Its not just philosophy: its also real science!

No, that is not science as it is not testable.

As for "God", "Buddha" or universal C. , not just some primitive flickering of quasi-awareness in the emptiness, a Universal Mind consciouss of its self, perhaps something one could access with contemplation -- why not? I don't think its crazy ... you just don't have the "scientific evidence", but that's no counter-evidence.(and this was not inverse burden of proof: I am not arguing FOR anything here)

Yes, you are making a claim for which you have no evidence.

[bennyboy]

No, that doesn't make sense. The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of a complex assemblage of matter, not the matter itself.

This isn't right, IMO. The "evidence" we have that some things are conscious is based on their behavior, and our philosophical willingness to believe that objects that exhibit certain behaviors are "really" conscious.

We cannot scientifically test for consciousness. We can only scientifically test for markers that we have already chosen to believe represent consciousness. This is fine when determining if Grammy is conscious, but does not contribute meaningfully to philosophical arguments about whether the Cyberboy 3000 is really conscious, or whether some primitive kind of atomic consciousness is associated with all matter.

[MindForgedManacle]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Mind/consciousness/self-awareness (or whatever appropriate term you want to use here) is a product of brains...Everything else is baseless conjecture.

The idea that the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.

[Whateverist]

Mind/consciousness/self-awareness (or whatever appropriate term you want to use here) is a product of brains...Everything else is baseless conjecture.

The idea that the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.

.. as compared with what alternative theory?