"Universal consciousness" is hardly a useful idea.  And whether or not it is actual will depend upon a definition of 'aware'.  I hold that 'aware' should be defined with the following phrase, "slope in a random place".   

    Some will tell me that I have misunderstood the word "define".  Others will raise the word "teleology" or "heuristic".  And when I suggest that such words serve to demonstrate my point, there is generally a total rejection of the position I hold.     

    Belief, in the end, depends upon usefulness, before it depends upon truth.  And here I suggest that to think of life as a "slope in a random place" is eminently useful.

    I can see this 'slope' in all living things, but I cannot see it in dead things or in things like stones or oxygen or telephone poles. But sometimes I can see this 'slope' in that mist which a circumstance of physics occasionally brings up from the river. 

    And I guess that's why the 'sensible folk' regard 'universal consciousness' as hardly a useful idea.

Previous  Next