Academia’s Moving Goalposts: Conformity in the Guise of Openness

[panpsych]

In a previous life (or at least what feels like one), I longed to be an academic. The idea was simple: if my waking thoughts were consumed by questions about consciousness and fundamental reality, why not pursue them in a formal capacity? What could be more efficient—more rational—than earning a living by following an intellectual compulsion?

Of course, this was a naïve misunderstanding of what academia actually is. I wasn’t wrong in thinking that there was money to be made in academia. I was, however, very wrong about how one was supposed to make it.

The academy has never been in the business of pure intellectual inquiry. It is an institution, and like all institutions, it operates on permissions. Some ideas are sanctioned, some are suppressed, and others simply do not exist—at least not within the sanctioned discourse. I learned this the hard way. There were things one did not talk about. Consciousness as something other than a computational byproduct of the brain? No. UFOs and non-human intelligence? Absolutely not. These were not topics to be engaged with in any serious way—not even in private discussions with colleagues. The social mechanisms of academia—the ridicule reflex, the professional safeguards, the tacit understandings of what constituted “serious work”—ensured that such ideas never made it past the realm of passing curiosity, much less formal research.

And so, I left. But not to intellectual exile—far from it.

A Different Kind of Fulfillment

I poured my time and energy into something far more demanding, visceral, and immediate than academic debates: working as a Behavioural Specialist with autistic young people in the English residential childcare system. These were individuals who presented extremely challenging behaviour, and my role was not some abstract philosophical exercise—it was real, tangible, and had life-changing stakes.

In many ways, it was more meaningful than anything academia had offered me. The work was difficult, often morally complex—the operational and business elements of the sector raised their own questions—but the intrinsic rewards were undeniable.

And those questions I once obsessed over? They didn’t vanish.

They found new ground.

Theories of consciousness, agency, perception, and behavior—once academic thought experiments—became practical tools in my work. I saw firsthand how different minds interface with reality, how cognition could manifest in unexpected ways, and how perception itself seemed to obey its own internal physics.

I applied my intellectual obsessions in unexpected ways.

But I never stopped pondering.

The Litmus Test: Deploying the Clinton-Kimmel Playbook

For a long time, I had assumed that if I ever wanted to re-engage with academia, it would be on their terms. That meant sticking to institutional dogma, avoiding politically inconvenient conclusions, and ensuring that my work stayed within the acceptable radius of permitted discourse.

But what if I didn’t?

I decided to submit a preprint to PhilSci Archive (PSA)—the University of Pittsburgh’s respected repository for philosophy of science. Notably, PSA is curated. It’s not a free-for-all. Submissions are screened to ensure they fall within the accepted philosophy of science discourse. In other words, PSA represents a controlled entry point into the academic ecosystem—a space where ideas can exist before they’re fully rubber-stamped, but only if they’ve already been cleared for discussion.

So, I designed my paper as a test case.

I intentionally structured it to include the newly sanctioned terminology—the same “UAP”, “non-human intelligence (NHI)”, and “anomalous aerospace phenomena” rhetoric that government officials and media figures had been using for years. I played the game. I used the language that had been carefully focus-grouped into legitimacy.

I wrote:

“This paper explores the quantum-mechanical underpinnings of consciousness and the potential for non-human intelligence (NHI) technology to exploit these phenomena through advanced psionic interaction models.”

Notice the careful construction. Not “extraterrestrial intelligence.” Not “aliens.” Those terms would have set off the reflexive academic alarms. Instead, I used the officially authorized nomenclature—the kind that had been de-risked by its use in congressional hearings and mainstream news interviews.

For good measure, I wrapped it all in a rigorous theoretical framework, ensuring that it aligned with existing discussions in quantum cognition, panpsychism, and information theory. If they rejected it, they’d have to do so on academic grounds alone, rather than due to any overt violation of the established linguistic codes of acceptability.

Then, I hit Submit.

The Result: Academia’s Permission Structure in Action

To my genuine amusement, PSA accepted it without hesitation.

Quantum Foundations of Consciousness: A Framework for Psionic Interaction and Non-Human Intelligence Integration now sits in their repository—among papers by Dan Dennett and other mainstream figures in philosophy of science.

This should have been a victory. Instead, it felt like confirmation of something far less triumphant:

Academia had not become more open. It had simply moved the goalposts.

Ten years ago, my paper would have been dismissed as pseudoscience. Not because the arguments were weaker, but because the topic itself had not yet been approved for discussion. Now, after a decade of institutional recalibration, I am suddenly permitted to explore the very same ideas—because they have been sanitized and certified for academic consumption.

This is not intellectual freedom. This is a delayed form of conformity.

Final Thoughts: Conformity, with a New Coat of Paint

The academy does not challenge paradigms. It absorbs them, repackages them, and permits their discussion only once they have been made institutionally safe. The fact that I am allowed back into the discourse does not mean I was right all along. It simply means that the system has adjusted its boundaries to accommodate what has now become necessary to discuss.

Had I submitted my work ten years ago, I would have been dismissed. Today, my work is acceptable—not because the academy has become brave, but because it has become pragmatic.

True intellectual freedom would mean pursuing ideas before they are deemed permissible. Until that day arrives, academia will remain what it has always been:

Not a home for the brave, but a refuge for the newly authorized.

[Michel Leclerc]

Thank you Panpsych. I will read your paper tomorrow. Flares of recognition while glancing through your bibliography.

[Mike]

Congratulations on your paper getting accepted! From what I've read so far it reminds me of some of the concepts in Michael Talbot's 'The Holographic Universe'. I'm enjoying it.

Sadly you're accurate about academia, but I believe in celebrating victories when we get them. Life is too short not to. It's wonderful that your paper will now reach a wider audience.

[Hermoor]

You figured things out well. Even better than that was the eloquence and writing style with which you expressed them. Damn near peerless, I'd say. Chapeau to you.

"In a previous life (or at least what feels like one), I longed to be a ...." scientist.

Early doors in first year food chemistry I figured out something was terribly amiss with the academic establishment and scholarly teachings and pursuits therein. It bent me badly out of shape for a short time. I bounced back quickly, most of us do when we are youthful.

Third year genetics was excruciating and the telegraph pole that broke my camelesque academic back. I started taking evening classes at nautical college to stay sane and get a plan b moving.

Your quotes are class. I'm going to borrow them shamelessly as they will bring the right kind of enlightenment to many a dark corner.

[edina]

Posted by panpsych (here)
To my genuine amusement, PSA accepted it without hesitation.

Quantum Foundations of Consciousness: A Framework for Psionic Interaction and Non-Human Intelligence Integration now sits in their repository—among papers by Dan Dennett and other mainstream figures in philosophy of science.

Congratulations on your paper getting published!!!

Regardless of any academic intent, I think the CONTENT of your paper is interesting. And I hope it gets much, much, more attention.

I've downloaded your paper to look at more closely as I move deeper in my own education journey. At this point, I probably won't fully understand it, but I'll read it anyway, because I want to understand it.

Recently, Annaka Harris did an interview with Rich Roll that sounds very similar to the ideas expressed in the keywords of your paper.

Here's she's framing the topic as a willingness to ask the question, "Is Consciousness Fundamental to Reality", rather than emergent from a process in our brains. She mentioned about how she once explained this as "Panpsychism" but she's shifting her thinking on the language she's using to talk about this idea, because her understanding of the data is evolving.

Science Is SHATTERING Our Understanding Of Reality: It’s All About Consciousness | Annaka Harris

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4GL4YvX76wg

CHAPTERS
00:00:00 Intro
00:02:22 Interview Start
00:04:07 Defining Consciousness
00:06:49 Challenges in Defining Consciousness
00:12:24 Fundamental Consciousness vs. Emergent Consciousness
00:18:25 Experiencing Consciousness
00:19:54 Experiences Beyond Self
00:23:02 Emergence of Consciousness, Space and Time
00:24:30 Questioning Consciousness with Psychedelics
00:29:05 Questioning Consciousness with Science
00:33:24 Sponsor Break
00:35:40 Rich's Meditation on the Nature of Consciousness
00:37:48 Audio Documentary, "Lights On"
00:39:05 Limits of Communication
00:40:05 Sensory Substitution and Addition
00:42:53 Consciousness and Universal Structure
00:46:21 Physics and Consciousness
00:52:01 Understanding Things That We Can't Perceive
00:54:36 Surrendering to Not Knowing
00:57:05 Dimensions of Love
00:58:35 The Difficult Questions Surrounding Consciousness
01:01:23 Sponsor Break
01:03:32 Emergent Property vs. Fundamental Property
01:08:45 How Does A Fundamental Perspective Square With Science?
01:11:38 AI and Consciousness
01:15:44 Experiential Science
01:17:42 Sharing Intuition
01:20:42 The Importance Of Asking The Deeper Questions
01:24:37 Cinematic Reflections
01:25:59 The Universe Is One Thing
01:29:56 Developing a Deeper Sense of Compassion
01:31:42 Scientific Reception of Consciousness Ideas
01:33:21 Consciousness and Suffering
01:35:21 Closing Thoughts

While I understand your skepticism, that this shift in academic behavior is a sort of trap, moving the goal posts to cultivate a new form of conformity, I wonder if it may be something more?

Annaka's talk with Rich Roll piqued my curiosity. It looks to be the start of a Docu-series she has coming out, starting tomorrow actually.

LIGHTS ON

It sounds like she is talking about this with a whole crew of scientists, neuroscientists, physicists and thinkers. I've already made note of this to myself to observe it's development. Will anything of substance come out of this?

You look to be in good company.

As I watched this interview last week, I wondered to myself, Could it be that the guardrails around this topic are coming down?

Our solar system is moving through a higher energy area of space. And this seems to be affecting our consciousness. Maybe, this is what's happening?

Additionally, I just finished watching, Why the West is waking up from a 70 year nap | Eric Weinstein [ARC 2025]. Which fits in well with a lot of the conversations happening across Avalon these days.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mbdJtrXYBZs

00:00 - The Culture War as a Real War
00:40 - The Fall of the Post-WWII Order
01:59 - Is Vitality Linked to Conflict?
03:17 - The Dark History of Emasculation
05:13 - You Have Been in a War Without Knowing It
06:29 - The Weaponization of Social Sciences
07:52 - Soft Fascism and Institutional Control
10:50 - The Great Nap is Over—What Comes Next?

Eric starts off the talk with the intention to help the audience come up to speed on the fact that there has been a real war going on. His talk builds on that and then morphs at the end to express the point that we have this slender window of opportunity, and being a physicist himself, of course, he feels that physics is the arena in which that opportunity exists.

Both of these videos complement the premise of your paper, and your OP, as I understand it. As well as the original stated mission of Avalon, about science and spirituality. It's also why I'm here, now, on the planet, living in this time.

And the timing of it all feels almost synchronous. Makes me say, hmmm

I'm very keen to learn more of your thinking on this, as well as the thinking of everyone else.

[panpsych]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by panpsych (here)
To my genuine amusement, PSA accepted it without hesitation.

Quantum Foundations of Consciousness: A Framework for Psionic Interaction and Non-Human Intelligence Integration now sits in their repository—among papers by Dan Dennett and other mainstream figures in philosophy of science.

Congratulations on your paper getting published!!!

Regardless of any academic intent, I think the CONTENT of your paper is interesting. And I hope it gets much, much, more attention.

I've downloaded your paper to look at more closely as I move deeper in my own education journey. At this point, I probably won't fully understand it, but I'll read it anyway, because I want to understand it.

Recently, Annaka Harris did an interview with Rich Roll that sounds very similar to the ideas expressed in the keywords of your paper.

Here's she's framing the topic as a willingness to ask the question, "Is Consciousness Fundamental to Reality", rather than emergent from a process in our brains. She mentioned about how she once explained this as "Panpsychism" but she's shifting her thinking on the language she's using to talk about this idea, because her understanding of the data is evolving.

Science Is SHATTERING Our Understanding Of Reality: It’s All About Consciousness | Annaka Harris

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4GL4YvX76wg

CHAPTERS
00:00:00 Intro
00:02:22 Interview Start
00:04:07 Defining Consciousness
00:06:49 Challenges in Defining Consciousness
00:12:24 Fundamental Consciousness vs. Emergent Consciousness
00:18:25 Experiencing Consciousness
00:19:54 Experiences Beyond Self
00:23:02 Emergence of Consciousness, Space and Time
00:24:30 Questioning Consciousness with Psychedelics
00:29:05 Questioning Consciousness with Science
00:33:24 Sponsor Break
00:35:40 Rich's Meditation on the Nature of Consciousness
00:37:48 Audio Documentary, "Lights On"
00:39:05 Limits of Communication
00:40:05 Sensory Substitution and Addition
00:42:53 Consciousness and Universal Structure
00:46:21 Physics and Consciousness
00:52:01 Understanding Things That We Can't Perceive
00:54:36 Surrendering to Not Knowing
00:57:05 Dimensions of Love
00:58:35 The Difficult Questions Surrounding Consciousness
01:01:23 Sponsor Break
01:03:32 Emergent Property vs. Fundamental Property
01:08:45 How Does A Fundamental Perspective Square With Science?
01:11:38 AI and Consciousness
01:15:44 Experiential Science
01:17:42 Sharing Intuition
01:20:42 The Importance Of Asking The Deeper Questions
01:24:37 Cinematic Reflections
01:25:59 The Universe Is One Thing
01:29:56 Developing a Deeper Sense of Compassion
01:31:42 Scientific Reception of Consciousness Ideas
01:33:21 Consciousness and Suffering
01:35:21 Closing Thoughts

While I understand your skepticism, that this shift in academic behavior is a sort of trap, moving the goal posts to cultivate a new form of conformity, I wonder if it may be something more?

Annaka's talk with Rich Roll piqued my curiosity. It looks to be the start of a Docu-series she has coming out, starting tomorrow actually.

LIGHTS ON

It sounds like she is talking about this with a whole crew of scientists, neuroscientists, physicists and thinkers. I've already made note of this to myself to observe it's development. Will anything of substance come out of this?

You look to be in good company.

As I watched this interview last week, I wondered to myself, Could it be that the guardrails around this topic are coming down?

Our solar system is moving through a higher energy area of space. And this seems to be affecting our consciousness. Maybe, this is what's happening?

Additionally, I just finished watching, Why the West is waking up from a 70 year nap | Eric Weinstein [ARC 2025]. Which fits in well with a lot of the conversations happening across Avalon these days.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mbdJtrXYBZs

00:00 - The Culture War as a Real War
00:40 - The Fall of the Post-WWII Order
01:59 - Is Vitality Linked to Conflict?
03:17 - The Dark History of Emasculation
05:13 - You Have Been in a War Without Knowing It
06:29 - The Weaponization of Social Sciences
07:52 - Soft Fascism and Institutional Control
10:50 - The Great Nap is Over—What Comes Next?

Eric starts off the talk with the intention to help the audience come up to speed on the fact that there has been a real war going on. His talk builds on that and then morphs at the end to express the point that we have this slender window of opportunity, and being a physicist himself, of course, he feels that physics is the arena in which that opportunity exists.

Both of these videos complement the premise of your paper, and your OP, as I understand it. As well as the original stated mission of Avalon, about science and spirituality. It's also why I'm here, now, on the planet, living in this time.

And the timing of it all feels almost synchronous. Makes me say, hmmm

I'm very keen to learn more of your thinking on this, as well as the thinking of everyone else.

@Edina, thank you.

I think you’ve landed on exactly the right question: is this shift in thought happening because human consciousness is evolving, or is it just being repackaged for us in a more palatable way?

There’s a real case for the first option. Plenty of ideas that were once unthinkable eventually work their way into mainstream acceptance—not because anyone “permits” them, but because we eventually reach a point where we can’t ignore them anymore.

And as you pointed out, this shift didn’t come out of nowhere. Russell and Eddington were already making this argument a century ago, Strawson revived it, and now Goff and Hoffman are bringing it to a wider academic audience. When figures like Annaka Harris start making these ideas digestible for a mainstream crowd, it does start to look like a natural evolution. Maybe we really are just catching up.

But let’s walk back through my paper submission and compare it to the Weinstein case.

In 2013, Eric Weinstein presented his Geometric Unity framework at Oxford University, in a lecture organized by Marcus du Sautoy. This wasn’t some fringe event—it was a serious academic presentation at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. Yet, despite his credentials and the scale of his claims, his ideas were never absorbed into mainstream academic discourse. By the time he self-published his manuscript in 2021, his work had already been relegated to the margins, and to this day, his discussions on UAPs and advanced physics remain largely confined to podcasts.

Now compare that to what happened when I submitted my paper, which covers:

1. The fundamentality of consciousness.


2. Its potential technological applications (‘psionics’).


3. Its relationship to UAP/NHI tech.



I wasn’t just accepted into a highly respected repository—I walked straight in without a single barrier.

Not because my ideas were any less disruptive than Weinstein’s, but because I meticulously used the right terminology. I made sure my work was framed within the new, officially sanctioned language that allows these topics to be discussed without setting off institutional alarms.

That’s the kind of difference I’m seeing here. Weinstein was too early. His ideas weren’t dressed up in the correct, pre-approved packaging, so they were relegated to the 'Intellectual Dark Web'. Conversely, I arrived at the a moment when we've been handed a script, I read from it, and so I was able to wander in through an unlocked gate.

But if this were truly an intellectual breakthrough, would it still matter how these ideas are framed? If human consciousness had simply evolved past these boundaries, there wouldn’t be such a stark contrast between what’s accepted and what isn’t. Yet that distinction remains. The rules haven’t disappeared; they’ve just been refined.

The sandbox might be much bigger. But it still feels very much like a sandbox.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

[rgray222]

Posted by panpsych (here)
In many ways, it was more meaningful than anything academia had offered me. The work was difficult, often morally complex—the operational and business elements of the sector raised their own questions—but the intrinsic rewards were undeniable.

I read your post with great enthusiasm and enjoyed your realistic look at academia so I apologize for my question. I feel like the person with a full plate of food in front of me and yet I am only picking at it around the edges.

The term morally complex jumped off the page at me. Can you add a bit of detail.
Many thanks

[onawah]

An interesting thread which is similar to another new one:
"A high IQ. Why does it matter? Is it Overrated ??"
See:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...s-it-Overrated

Perhaps a new subforum needs to be in the making entitled something like "Real Intelligence, AI and Academia".
All are linked and very much in the general current focus, it seems.

[panpsych]

Posted by rgray222 (here)

Posted by panpsych (here)
In many ways, it was more meaningful than anything academia had offered me. The work was difficult, often morally complex—the operational and business elements of the sector raised their own questions—but the intrinsic rewards were undeniable.

I read your post with great enthusiasm and enjoyed your realistic look at academia so I apologize for my question. I feel like the person with a full plate of food in front of me and yet I am only picking at it around the edges.

The term morally complex jumped off the page at me. Can you add a bit of detail.
Many thanks

@rgray222

No need to apologise – I appreciate you thinking about this, and your question is a great one. In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have glossed over my remarks on the care sector quite so quickly.

My 'real job' background is in behavioural psychology, and I worked as a behavioural specialist within the UK residential childcare sector. Unlike some areas of social care, residential childcare in the UK isn’t nationalised—there’s no single government-run system. Instead, it operates through a patchwork of private companies that run and staff the homes, while local government authorities oversee placements and ensure regulatory compliance. It’s a partnership of sorts, but the actual day-to-day operations, recruitment, and business decisions are in the hands of private companies.

That’s where the moral complexity comes in. Many of us enter the field with a strong ethical motivation—we want to provide the best possible support for vulnerable children. But the companies running these homes are businesses, and their survival depends on remaining financially viable. One of the biggest challenges they face is recruitment. Positions in these types of provisions—especially those supporting young people with severe challenging behaviour—are notoriously difficult to fill. Turnover is high, and domestic recruitment drives often fail to bring in enough qualified staff to keep homes running.

That’s the business motivation behind some of the more questionable recruitment practices. The company I recently left (I won’t name them here, but will provide links below for further reading) outsourced its recruitment to the Middle East, promising trainee nurses that if they bought into a "professional development scheme"—paying upwards of £18,000—they’d come to the UK to finish their qualifications and work as nurses. But when they arrived, they found out they wouldn’t be nurses at all. Instead, they were placed in residential childcare, working with autistic young people who present severe challenging behaviour—including frequent physical aggression. These recruits, many of whom had financially crippled themselves to take this opportunity, suddenly found themselves trapped in an entirely different role with no clear way out.

This is where the real moral complexity lies—not just in the fact that the company engaged in unethical recruitment practices, but in the murky space between their motivations and their actions. On one hand, their decision was driven by a desperate need to staff homes that otherwise wouldn’t be able to operate. On the other, the way they went about it was deeply exploitative. It’s this uneasy mix of semi-moral, semi-capitalist scruples that creates an ethical grey area, one that rubs awkwardly against the instincts of professionals trying to deliver care in a way that truly serves the best interests of the children.

To be clear, these are just my personal views based on my own experiences. I’m not claiming to have the last word on the sector as a whole. There are many brilliant, dedicated professionals working in residential childcare, and not all companies operate in the same way. But for me, the ethical discomfort became too great, and it was the biggest reason I ultimately left.

For further reading on similar issues, see these reports:

‘Sold a dream’: migrant workers at children’s care chain left without pay for months

Migrant care workers came to help the UK. Now they’re trapped in debt bondage

Hope that clarifies what I meant, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

[rgray222]

Posted by panpsych (here)
This is where the real moral complexity lies—not just in the fact that the company engaged in unethical recruitment practices, but in the murky space between their motivations and their actions. On one hand, their decision was driven by a desperate need to staff homes that otherwise wouldn’t be able to operate. On the other, the way they went about it was deeply exploitative. It’s this uneasy mix of semi-moral, semi-capitalist scruples that creates an ethical grey area, one that rubs awkwardly against the instincts of professionals trying to deliver care in a way that truly serves the best interests of the children.

To be clear, these are just my personal views based on my own experiences. I’m not claiming to have the last word on the sector as a whole. There are many brilliant, dedicated professionals working in residential childcare, and not all companies operate in the same way. But for me, the ethical discomfort became too great, and it was the biggest reason I ultimately left.

For further reading on similar issues, see these reports:

‘Sold a dream’: migrant workers at children’s care chain left without pay for months

Migrant care workers came to help the UK. Now they’re trapped in debt bondage

Hope that clarifies what I meant, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

That truly is reprehensible and deeply saddens me.

The worldwide (I am sure there might be some exceptions) resources directed at people with disabilities both physical and mental are simply not enough. There are many wonderful and dedicated people working in this field but it seems like it is only a drop in the bucket.

When I lived in Sweden I greatly admired the human and financial resources they allocated to helping mentally and physically disabled people. I am not sure if that is still true, I know that the problems they are experiencing with immigration has changed the equation.

[edina]

Panpsych, I’ve been thinking about this thread, and have noticed there are several lines of thought I have from just the few posts in this thread. Here’s my first thoughts…

I can see where there are several, or even many, conversations that can come from the combination of the OP, and/or your paper.

One has already been raised by rgray222, the concept of “moral complexity”.

Another that comes to mind is the concept of “linguistic codes” of acceptability. I hope that Michel Leclerc may weigh in on that a bit. I have a few questions about the language of mathematics in terms of the discipline of linguistics, as well. That may be a bit too off-topic for this thread, though.

In your OP you seem primarily concerned with a critique on the academic system/institution. Is this the conversation you’re more interested in having in this thread?

Another potentially rich range of conversations could come from a discussion of the content of your paper, linked in your OP. That could spin off tangentially into all kinds of interesting concepts, topics and discussions.

I think the people in Avalon can hold multiples threads of thoughts at one time. So, I can see where this could be done in one thread.

Before I get back with you further on my thoughts and thinking I wanted to check in with you and see how you feel about this. Do you want the conversation to be more focused on Academic/Institutional issues? And/or, how do you feel about discussion on the ideas, concepts and theories coming from your paper?

I’m still reading your paper. And your guidance here will help me determine how I’ll go from here.
Thanks.

[panpsych]

@edina

Thank you for such a thoughtful and considered post. The way you’ve held multiple strands of the conversation in view while keeping things clear and grounded is genuinely appreciated.

Just to clarify the intention behind the OP: I wasn’t looking to centre the discussion on the paper itself. I referenced it because it happened to function as a live test case—relevant in the context of what I see as a broader institutional dynamic unfolding in real time.

Given how the thread has developed, it feels like the institutional and structural themes are where the natural momentum is, and I think that’s a solid direction for this space to continue exploring. Your point about “linguistic codes,” in particular, folds neatly into that and is something I’d really like to dig into further here.

That said, if there’s appetite to open up the ideas in the paper itself—particularly around consciousness—I’d be more than happy to help facilitate that in a separate thread. I just don’t want to assume interest or overstate its importance.

And as far as structure goes, I’m very happy to be guided by the Forum. I have more confidence in Avalon’s ability to hold multidimensional, good-faith dialogue than any other community on the planet.

Thanks again for engaging so carefully—I’m looking forward to wherever this leads.

[edina]

I am so glad I asked. And thank you for your gracious answer.

Count me interested if you decide to open a thread about your paper, and/or about the theme of "Consciousness as fundamental to reality" or something along those lines. (When I mentioned that this is why I'm here on the planet now, it was more related to the topic of consciousness, and the evolution of human consciousness.)

I may NOT be qualified to speak about academic institutions. I quit school when I was 16 and joined the Air Force the first week I turned 17. I've been working since I was 13, so I'm probably more working class than academic.

However, I'm not unintelligent. I had been recommended to skip a grade between elementary and junior high. But my parents followed the advice of my math teacher, (there's an irony, here). And decided to not let me skip a grade. I was doing the math homework of my neighbors when they were in junior high, and I was in 3rd grade. And that same math teacher my parents turned to for advice was my favorite teacher. We used to compete for chairs in his class, and no one could compete with me. I was totally a full on obnoxious 10 year and challenged anyone whose seat I wanted to sit in so I could sit where I wanted when I was in his class. I have often felt that I never really learned anything new from junior high on. (We had switched from a Catholic school to a public school when I was in 5th grade, I think my parents could no longer afford the tuition.)

It was easy for me to make straight A's without any effort on my part. Even so, I did not know I was intelligent. If you can imagine that? It just goes to show that labeling someone can have an affect on their self-perception, no matter how inaccurate the labels may be).

While in the Air Force, I did a stint as a Leadership School instructor. The Leadership School is phase 3 of professional military education (PME) for enlisted airmen. That stage is designed to help airmen transition into more supervisory roles as they make more rank. I was sent to Academic Instructor (AI) School in Montgomery, Alabama to learn how to make lessons plans and get the basic instructions on teaching. It was about a 6 week course, maybe 8 weeks. And I did take a few college classes while in my 20's. That's the extent of my "academic" experience.

After I left the Air Force, someone suggested to me that I take an IQ test. We were talking about the various experiences we had growing up. And she felt that I may have actually been a misunderstood gifted child. She said I show all the signs of it. So, I did. I didn't quality for Mensa but I was at the 95%. I probably would have done better, except that I had taken a Securities exam the day before and my brain was fried from that test. (I scored well in the 90's on the SEC.) And I remember driving home from the IQ test realizing at least 3 questions I had gotten wrong because of my tired brain from the day before. Anyway, it was physical proof and evidence to me that I wasn't stupid. And having that helped me reframe my perception about my intelligence.

A curious side note is that when I was at AI, one of the lesson plans I worked on was integrating about three personality/motivation models, into one lesson plan which I completed and presented to my seminar in one week. I remember my seminar AI Instructor telling me she thought I should go to college and get a degree because she thought I would become bored otherwise. I had done the lesson plan the way I did for fun, it was way more than required, and I did it more for the intellectual challenge of seeing if it could be pulled off and if I could do it.

So, I think I understand the need and desire for intellectual pursuit and freedom.

And while I may not know anything about academic institutions, I do have experiences with other sorts of institutions. (Air Force, banking, IRS, public schools ... )

Some of what you mention in your OP applies across the board as far as institutions are concerned, in my opinion, especially regarding "linguistic code". It's everywhere, where ever people gather in a group of some form or other.

[edina]

I think the case you present in your OP is that your paper was accepted based on you gaming their system. However, if you had not described it as such, I wouldn't have known it just from reading your paper alone.

I know this thread isn't about your paper, however, I want to note that one thing I appreciated about it is that you weren't trying to reinvent the wheel in terms of treating consciousness as fundamental to reality. You let the work of the people you mentioned in your reference footnotes do the heavy lifting in that area. Much like people don't try to prove the existence of electro-magnetism when they present a paper on an application of electro-magnetism, you worked from the premise of it, and wrote of potential applications.

I suppose then, I ought to ask, how do you feel about the work of the people you referenced. Were you referencing them solely to game the system or do you feel there is merit in their work? When I read your paper, without the context of the OP of this thread, I read it as support material for your ideas? And I thought that you handled that brilliantly.

Next, I want to consider the change in "accepted" language, UAP, and NHI. (As opposed to ET, and UFO, and so on.)

[edina]

Before I go further, let me just say, the more I read your OP the more I feel it is a beautifully written OpEd that is publishable worthy.

It's brilliant as a stand alone piece of writing.

And anything I may comment on from it doesn't take anything away from how well you presented and supported your opinion.

And, a thread is a conversation.

I almost hesitate to comment though. Because I don't want to take away from the original post, by having discussion about ideas that are generated from it.

I do have some questions that come to mind when I read this bit.

Posted by panpsych (here)
So, I designed my paper as a test case.

I intentionally structured it to include the newly sanctioned terminology—the same “UAP”, “non-human intelligence (NHI)”, and “anomalous aerospace phenomena” rhetoric that government officials and media figures had been using for years. I played the game. I used the language that had been carefully focus-grouped into legitimacy.

I wrote:

“This paper explores the quantum-mechanical underpinnings of consciousness and the potential for non-human intelligence (NHI) technology to exploit these phenomena through advanced psionic interaction models.”

Notice the careful construction. Not “extraterrestrial intelligence.” Not “aliens.” Those terms would have set off the reflexive academic alarms. Instead, I used the officially authorized nomenclature—the kind that had been de-risked by its use in congressional hearings and mainstream news interviews.

For good measure, I wrapped it all in a rigorous theoretical framework, ensuring that it aligned with existing discussions in quantum cognition, panpsychism, and information theory. If they rejected it, they’d have to do so on academic grounds alone, rather than due to any overt violation of the established linguistic codes of acceptability.

Then, I hit Submit.

The Result: Academia’s Permission Structure in Action

To my genuine amusement, PSA accepted it without hesitation.

When the change in nomenclature happened surrounding the long-standing issues of ET, alien life, UFO's and so on, I read that as shifting from a previous practice of downplaying, mocking, and ridiculing the topic, mostly by intel agencies, to bringing it into a more legitimate standing with public perception.

I think some people have presented this change in language as some evidence to preparing the general public for disclosure.

Personally, I felt that using the term non-human intelligence, prepared the public psyche, or consciousness, for the idea that there are other intelligent races, that are not human, on earth, already, The term may be an accurate description of reality.

I've also noticed over the years that science papers can be hard reads, there's a sort of academic speak, similar to legal-speak, legalese.

There's a tendency to use multiple syllabicate words and great effort taken to use as emotion-neutral words as possible, maybe to sound more scientific, or objective? Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena certainly fits that description.

If I understand your thought process accurately, you suggest that these new terms are steering us in some way? First do I understand you correctly? And if so, would you expand on that?

[edina]

I'm more sporadic in my engagement on Avalon these days. My plate is full to overflowing with various personal projects I'm working on that take a lot of focused attention. I try to come here about once a week. Usually Fridays, but sometimes Fridays themselves can get away from me .... and I don't always make it here.

So, there is often longer spells of time from when I post. If I don't respond for a bit, I'm not ghosting, I'm just working on other things. I am interested.

panpsych, I find I'm most intrigued with this section of your OP. This may be a topic for a different thread?

Posted by panpsych (here)
I poured my time and energy into something far more demanding, visceral, and immediate than academic debates: working as a Behavioural Specialist with autistic young people in the English residential childcare system. These were individuals who presented extremely challenging behaviour, and my role was not some abstract philosophical exercise—it was real, tangible, and had life-changing stakes.

In many ways, it was more meaningful than anything academia had offered me. The work was difficult, often morally complex—the operational and business elements of the sector raised their own questions—but the intrinsic rewards were undeniable.

And those questions I once obsessed over? They didn’t vanish.

They found new ground.

Theories of consciousness, agency, perception, and behavior—once academic thought experiments—became practical tools in my work. I saw firsthand how different minds interface with reality, how cognition could manifest in unexpected ways, and how perception itself seemed to obey its own internal physics.

Especially the bit about "how perception itself seemed to obey it's own internal physics."

I just wanted to make note of this should you ever want to expand further on this.
Here again, you are bringing information into application.
Living knowledge into wisdom.

I'm not sure academia per se, is set up for this?
Should it be?
If so, how?

I think it would make interesting research.

[panpsych]

Hi @Edina,

First, I just want to say thank you so much for your thoughtful and generous engagement. You've given me a lot to reflect on, and I really appreciate the time and care you’ve taken to respond in such depth.

Apologies for the delay in replying—part of the reason is that the paper we’ve been discussing has now been through peer review and has just been published in Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy. If you’d like to read the final version, it’s available here:

Quantum Foundations of Consciousness: A Framework for Psionic Interaction and Non-Human Intelligence Integration

---

1. On referencing other thinkers and “gaming the system”:

I really appreciate you asking about this. To be clear, my references to thinkers like Goff, Hoffman, and Strawson weren’t cynical moves—I have deep respect for their work. They’ve all contributed meaningfully to the broader conversation about consciousness as fundamental, and my goal was to stand on their shoulders, not bypass them.

In fact, I studied directly under Galen Strawson during my time at the University of Reading, and Philip and I actually share that same alma mater—both having been supervised in part by Galen. So in that sense, these aren’t just abstract citations for me—they’re part of the intellectual tradition I came up through, and it’s a tradition I still feel deeply connected to.

That said, I was also conscious of the framing, and I won’t pretend otherwise. In this particular paper, I did make deliberate choices about which language to use, precisely because I knew that certain terms are more likely to be institutionally accepted right now. But that’s not because I don’t believe in the work I’m citing—it’s because I wanted to open the door to these ideas in a way that would actually get through.

So, in a sense, you’re right—I was navigating the system carefully. But I wasn’t doing it to hollow out the ideas; I was doing it to make sure they had a place at the table.

---

2. On the shift from UFO/ET to UAP/NHI:

You’ve described the shift in terminology beautifully. It’s exactly how I see it too—moving from ridicule and marginalization to a kind of carefully controlled legitimacy. Terms like “non-human intelligence” aren’t just semantic updates; they’re part of a strategic reframing that allows both the public and academia to start taking these ideas seriously without triggering reflexive resistance.

In the paper, I adopted that language quite consciously—not because I think “UAP” or “NHI” are perfect terms, but because they’ve been focus-grouped into acceptability. They’ve become linguistic safe zones, and that makes them useful, if not always complete.

---

3. On whether academia is “set up” for this kind of exploration:

This is such an important question, and honestly, I don’t think there’s a simple answer. I do believe there’s a growing space for these ideas now, but I also think that space is highly managed. The sandbox might be bigger, but it’s still a sandbox.

Academia, by its nature, likes controlled expansions of discourse. And right now, the move toward discussing consciousness as fundamental—and even UAPs and non-human intelligence—feels like it’s happening within those curated boundaries.

But that doesn’t mean the conversation isn’t worth having. It just means we need to stay mindful of how the discourse is being framed, and who decides the terms.

---

4. On “living knowledge” and practical application:

I loved what you said about living knowledge becoming wisdom through application. That really resonates with me.

When I left academia and worked in the residential childcare system, I found myself applying concepts from consciousness studies and cognitive science in visceral, real-world ways. It wasn’t abstract anymore. It was about understanding perception, behavior, and cognition in practice, often in high-stakes situations with vulnerable young people.

That experience taught me a lot about the gap between theoretical knowledge and applied wisdom. And I think you’re absolutely right—this kind of living knowledge is often where the real breakthroughs happen, even if they don’t show up in academic journals.

---

5. On “linguistic codes” and institutional control:

I completely agree with your observation that linguistic codes are everywhere, not just in academia. The Air Force, the IRS, public schools—these systems all have their own language games that determine who gets heard and who doesn’t.

Academia is no different. The choice of terms like “UAP” and “NHI” reflects that same dynamic. It’s not just about what we’re allowed to say—it’s about how we’re allowed to say it, and which terms are institutionally safe versus those that are still considered taboo.

---

6. On consciousness as fundamental to reality:

I would love to continue this discussion. Starting a new thread on consciousness as fundamental to reality—and how that idea interfaces with both technology and human evolution—feels like a natural next step. I’m very interested in exploring how these ideas can move beyond theory and into meaningful application, and it sounds like you are too.

---

Final thoughts:

Thank you again, Edina, for your thoughtful questions and reflections. I’ve really enjoyed this exchange and look forward to continuing the conversation. Your contributions have made me think more deeply about how I approach these topics, and I’m genuinely grateful for that.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have time.

Warmest regards,

Mark

[edina]

Posted by panpsych (here)
Hi @Edina,

First, I just want to say thank you so much for your thoughtful and generous engagement. You've given me a lot to reflect on, and I really appreciate the time and care you’ve taken to respond in such depth.

Apologies for the delay in replying—part of the reason is that the paper we’ve been discussing has now been through peer review and has just been published in Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy. If you’d like to read the final version, it’s available here:

Quantum Foundations of Consciousness: A Framework for Psionic Interaction and Non-Human Intelligence Integration

Halo Mark,

It's good to hear from you!

And Congratulations on the peer review and publishing of your paper. I've downloaded it.

I'm very much interested in deepening the conversation. Later on, when I have a bit more time, I'll share some here on my learning journey with what you've already shared.

I'll be looking for the new thread, when you're ready to open it up.

Happy Day to you,
edina

[panpsych]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by panpsych (here)
Hi @Edina,

First, I just want to say thank you so much for your thoughtful and generous engagement. You've given me a lot to reflect on, and I really appreciate the time and care you’ve taken to respond in such depth.

Apologies for the delay in replying—part of the reason is that the paper we’ve been discussing has now been through peer review and has just been published in Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy. If you’d like to read the final version, it’s available here:

Quantum Foundations of Consciousness: A Framework for Psionic Interaction and Non-Human Intelligence Integration

Halo Mark,

It's good to hear from you!

And Congratulations on the peer review and publishing of your paper. I've downloaded it.

I'm very much interested in deepening the conversation. Later on, when I have a bit more time, I'll share some here on my learning journey with what you've already shared.

I'll be looking for the new thread, when you're ready to open it up.

Happy Day to you,
edina

You legend! I look forward to it!