Paranormal perception poses an interesting question for human consciousness. One cannot conclude that this level of consciousness is generalized and pervasive within the notion of consciousness. As an operational definition, one would have to restrict it to humans.
The IONS (Institute of Noetic Sciences) actively pursue investigations into this type of consciousness, in all its forms. This year, I submitted a research proposal to the organisation, which offered an engineering approach to furthering human-UAP events scientifically. It was one of the most-complex proposals I had to write. In the proposal, the literature search clearly supported this level of human and possibly NHI (Non Human Intelligence) consciousness connectivity. As a phenomenon, it is certified to be a real experience, pervasive and consistent. Pivoting to Physics. Even though it's considered the primary theory, Orch-OR remains unvalidated. It focuses on LOCAL biological consciousness as a mechanism. Its treatment of the wave function is problematic in that it asserts that human biology controls the 3D local expression of the wave function. The existence of the "Table of Elements" and Phyllotaxis are but a few observed contradictions, which the theory fails to consider or account for scientifically. By contrast, Paranormal Perception qualifies as Non LOCAL consciousness. This is the first distinction. However, paranormal perception does not serve to define Non-Local consciousness parameters. It posits as a probabilistic, dynamic open systems theory and it aims to address real experiences. The first of its scientific challenges must be epistemic versus empirical support. However, due to an ongoing denialism evident in Western science - to holistically consider consciousness academically - this field of study remains wide open. Therefore, all theorems are equally valid for consideration on scientific merit. In my view, an operating model of consciousness has to explain the different modes (levels), connectivity and messaging of general human consciousness first. That's where most data could be gathered empirically and informational artefacts persist. Hameroff and others have for decades contributed significant empirical data. The existing body of knowledge is huge, diverse and a little overwhelming in its domain-specific complexity. This may be a key factor in trying "to pin it down". Second, an operational definition would have to include for functionality and synthesis of local and non local consciousness. Furthermore, it would have to consider the possibility of a pervasive holographic-universal state of generalized global consciousness independently, whether as proto-consciousness, or physical consciousness, or something else, but considered nonetheless. "I say, therefore I am, or it becomes.", is subjective. Relativism holds that the individualistic-only perspective could never fully be objectively agreed upon. I think the laggard in this research area is Physics. It either refuses to peer review, or is incapable of it. I'll suggest that the key constraint in a scientific model of consciousness would be the battle for the working knowledge of the wave function. It's a physical key to nature and a source of global competitiveness. I'm convinced this knowledge is already known, but deliberately prevented from being formalized, for strategic reasons. IMO, this civilization cannot progress to its full potential unless this aspect of human functioning is taught as freely as are the benefits of naturalist medicinal and treatment approaches and non genetically engineered life on Earth. Spiritually, it seems the intentional polluting and dismissiveness towards respecting, protecting and advancing Nature remains a real challenge. The thought police are everywhere. On this forum, it's the same voices always drowning out the "voice of reason". It has become a troublesome, dominant pattern. Scientific inquiry cannot easily progress under such conditions, no matter how well intentioned. To a large degree, the topic then becomes irrelevant. I suspect that's why only the same voices persist in conversations. I don't expect this narrative-controlling human, and now proxied algorithmic behavior, to change for the better in my lifetime. Knowledge remains a critical battlefield. The sociology of knowledge, the true arbiter of what is being permitted to reach any public setting. It's a "Dark Ages" mentality. On Fri, 16 Oct 2026, 03:02 James Bowery, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 6:12 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> > wrote:... > >> The SAIC remote vision results were examined by a believer and a skeptic, >> who came to opposite conclusions as you would expect. >> > > Well, my goodness! That settles it then. > > Seriously, Matt, I have offered an operational definition for > consciousness. One might at least address it. > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2784bbfe524b0b93-Me6bb9e2caed1f052289445ee> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2784bbfe524b0b93-M35650ea86a1f382347fad50d Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
