The idea of universal intelligence hinges on apparently on what such intelligence may comprise of. Einstein waited until Eddington ‘proved’ his general theory of relativity. I am going this route to show with extremely bold brushstrokes how the sub conscious states interact with those becoming conscious.
If, theory-Einstein-, can be made analogous to the proof-Eddington, then in a sense, primarily it is based on the covered part of a continuum of intelligent activity , wether it be continuous or fragmented; vis. between ’ Reality based, repetitive process instentiating a codified reflective memory, or merely perceptive connections of newly formed -what Russell names 'sense-data. If the continuum predicates then it appears the- what You term -sub conscious- then this is posited as ‘IT’ were some kind of bank of information, from which arises the hypothetical , which has existed all along as some kind of central depository , guaranteed by repetition and varience.
But is such a guarantee of a fact or a model , which is necessary to uphold some kind of assurance of a primordial universal intelligence? Or is it merely an attempt to reduce, rather than infer a discomfort and even fear over the instability of an indeterminate world?
Can molecular intelligence be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment?
On closer thought, in answer to Russel’s paradoxical non resolved quarry of non-sense data, Wittgenstein answered correctly, that its a non-puzzle because the analogy between sense and data is not based on a primary, necessary logic, its an extrapolation of forming identity from similitude.
This works for me on the level of demoting the fear of the popularized version of the implications of quantum effects.
I think repetition can be inferred by another pair of early explorers - Boltzmann and Maxwell, - who based early studies on patterns of distribution. Things are acting and reacting because of basic probable distribution patterns, which are given. That ‘givenness’ can serve as a constant and predictable way, in which repetitions of those patterns are/become part of the active reactive process between them.
This is the phase, if it can be called that, where analogy breaks down to mirror, or reflect the constant recurrence of similar states , infinitely setting the perceptive, transcendency into an imminence of a hidden ‘reality’ as identifiably unique, in the sense of breaking IT(reality) up into sub types.types and paradigms.
What is of the essence here. literally, is that indeterminacy creates its own structural transcendence in the production of hierarchies of analogy, the genesis of which can be traced back to the ancient representation of innumerable turtles lying on other turtles’ backs, or the reflective effect of ever diminishing mirrors reflecting a non existent depth. I think Narcissus began to realize the ‘actuality of his depth’ when he began to see himself reflected in the mirror, rather seeing the other.
That this transcendence is one based on the fear that maybe sense-data may really be a construct of convenience to sustain the idea of monadology, or universal expectation for a causal explanation , as Descartes , and others tried, ; turns out ironically to be an unnecessary project
Hundreds of years of construction of this lead to deconstruction, on basis of Wittgenstein’s brilliant shot from the idea of appearance of similitude, or resemblance as the fulcrum around which derivation and identification built insecurity and fear;, where if, such were to be understood in relation to , for example effects of warping space time-as Eddington did to Einstein’s hypothesis implies, -then, imminence as an ultimate state could be understood.
That state, is the ether into which we,the tiny bubble, is temporarily injected, and made to develop the multiple realities
by transcending the per ceivi ing.
Reality becomes the necessary illusion by which various forms of existence become intelligible and this illusion is the highest form of being.
In this sense, we can’t ever sense the data whereby our coming to be and ceasing to be would not turn on this necessary part of understanding.