Consciousness, Reality, and the Interface with Anomalous Phenomena: An Invitation to Dialogue

[panpsych]

Following on from recent conversations, and @Edina’s encouragement, I thought this might be the right moment to open a thread exploring the central thesis of my recent work.

For anyone interested, the published version is now available:

Quantum Consciousness: A Reformulated Framework

What is this about?

At its core, this is a realist proposal that takes seriously three commitments, often held apart in mainstream discussion:

1. The reality of consciousness—not as a secondary property of brains, but as a fundamental feature of existence.
2. The power of causo-physical theory—the extraordinary success of physics in modelling lawful interactions in space-time is not abandoned.
3. The apparent integration of the two—in documented cases of observer-linked phenomena, especially UAP encounters, where consciousness seems to participate in the unfolding of physical events.

Most models of reality focus on one or two of these areas but shy away from integrating all three. The framework I’ve proposed attempts to do just that.

The Formal Structure

In mainstream quantum mechanics, systems are described using Hilbert spaces—mathematical constructs that capture all possible states a system can occupy. The standard model assumes these states are purely "physical." This work expands that structure to include conscious states directly.

H_total = H_physical ⊗ H_phenomenal

In plain terms: there is no clean separation between matter and mind. Consciousness is part of the universe’s state space from the outset.

Why is this relevant to Avalon?

Because the interface between consciousness and anomalous phenomena—especially UAP encounters—is precisely where this framework applies. Many of these interactions appear to involve consciousness as a co-active element. Observers frequently report that the phenomenon responds to intention, expectation, or focused attention.

The UAP is not just an object in the sky; it becomes an interactive event in the observer’s reality.

Standard physics has no language for that. But a consciousness-coupled framework might.

Rather than treating psi, UAP contact, and cosmological fine-tuning as unrelated curiosities, this proposal suggests they are all facets of the same interface problem: how consciousness interacts with the fundamental structure of reality.

This is not speculative in the casual sense—it’s speculative in the formal sense. The goal is to give structural language to experiences and phenomena that are typically relegated to folklore, while remaining within the domain of lawful modelling.

For those interested in a deeper dive:

I’ve developed two expanded versions of the framework:

• On the Foundational Primacy of Consciousness and Its Quantum–Mechanical Coupling to Non–Human Intelligence Technology: A Framework for Psionic Interaction
• Matter is Measured Mind: A Unified Quantum–Consciousness Framework Integrating Fine-Tuning, UAP Anomalies, and Psi Phenomena

These explore the idea of lawful interaction between consciousness and non-human technological systems. The coupling is formalised using operator mathematics, but in straightforward terms it describes psionic interaction—not as a belief system, but as a structural possibility.

The composite Hilbert space is:

H = H_Matter ⊗ H_Consciousness ⊗ H_NHI

And the coupling Hamiltonian is:

H_int = g Σ Ĉ ⊗ N̂_α

This proposes a mechanism for direct, lawful interaction between consciousness, material systems, and non-human intelligence technologies—whether those systems are biological, technological, or something stranger.

Questions for the community:

• Does this framework help to resolve or reframe the Hard Problem of consciousness, or does it simply shift it into a new structure?
• Is this a useful way to model psi, UAP contact, and cosmological anomalies together, rather than treating them as separate phenomena?
• Could this framework be tested or falsified, and if so, how?
• How does this align—or clash—with lived experiences and direct encounters with the anomalous?

Why start this thread?

Because Avalon is one of the few places where serious, long-form discussion of these ideas can happen without immediate dismissal. Some may find this framework gives theoretical scaffolding to intuitions they’ve already had. Others may challenge it, or offer alternatives. Both are welcome.

This isn’t presented as a final answer—it’s an invitation to shared inquiry. The intersection of consciousness, reality, and anomalous phenomena remains one of the richest frontiers available to us.

If any of the links don’t work or are inaccessible, just let me know. I’m happy to provide other ways to share the material.

Looking forward to the discussion.

[edina]

I think this integrative approach is useful and consider it the most logical and rational approach to pursue.

The parsing out of reality into slivers of itself, while interesting and also useful in it's own way, has hit a bit of brick wall, in my opinion. And I suspect reality is ready for humanity to up-level it's understanding of reality. It's coming at us whether we're ready or not, so I think your work is poignant for the times.

Because I don't have an academic background as I've mentioned here, and had literally been steered away from mathematics by various teachers, math is an educational gap for me. I am not clear about the use of a Hilbert Space. I can probably follow the logic of it but am unfamiliar with the mathematical language of it, and it's use in modelling. I've scheduled myself some time to study it more this coming winter.

Around the time you first posted about your paper johnnycomelately shared a video of a talk about Hilbert Spaces, here and here. At the time I thought it was synchronous.

Or, as clif might say, qualia from the Ontology. A meaningful coincidence. (Jung, Cayce)

I watched it hoping to gain a better understanding of "Hilbert Space". I'm not sure if it would fit in what you are describing in your body of work?

I watched it back in early April and was taking in a lot of topic-related information at the time. I'll need to revisit it again this winter. I remember the discussion between Curt Jaimungal and Jacob Barande focused much on the concept/idea/theory of an "indivisible stochastic approach".

The word stochastic is not a commonly used word. In fact, the only other time I've come across it was in Joseph Chilton's Pearce book, Strange Loops and Gestures of Creation. Majestic random synergy.

I'm bringing this up at the outset of this conversation to see what you, and others, think. And just to hold in consideration as we move forward. Is it complimentary to you're approach?

Posted by panpsych (here)
Why is this relevant to Avalon?

Because the interface between consciousness and anomalous phenomena—especially UAP encounters—is precisely where this framework applies. Many of these interactions appear to involve consciousness as a co-active element. Observers frequently report that the phenomenon responds to intention, expectation, or focused attention.

The UAP is not just an object in the sky; it becomes an interactive event in the observer’s reality.

Standard physics has no language for that. But a consciousness-coupled framework might.

Rather than treating psi, UAP contact, and cosmological fine-tuning as unrelated curiosities, this proposal suggests they are all facets of the same interface problem: how consciousness interacts with the fundamental structure of reality.

I agree. This is a quintessential Roundtable topic for Avalon!

Along with Edyta's thread as Sue mentions,

Posted by Sue (Ayt) (here)
I feel so grateful that you have found your way to Project Avalon, Edyta.
Your thread almost seems to have revived and rekindled the Project Avalon collective consciousness spiritual fires!

Or possibly the embers are igniting everywhere.

The timing certainly seems relevant.

[panpsych]

Posted by edina (here)
I think this integrative approach is useful and consider it the most logical and rational approach to pursue.

The parsing out of reality into slivers of itself, while interesting and also useful in it's own way, has hit a bit of brick wall, in my opinion. And I suspect reality is ready for humanity to up-level it's understanding of reality. It's coming at us whether we're ready or not, so I think your work is poignant for the times.

Because I don't have an academic background as I've mentioned here, and had literally been steered away from mathematics by various teachers, math is an educational gap for me. I am not clear about the use of a Hilbert Space. I can probably follow the logic of it but am unfamiliar with the mathematical language of it, and it's use in modelling. I've scheduled myself some time to study it more this coming winter.

Around the time you first posted about your paper johnnycomelately shared a video of a talk about Hilbert Spaces, here and here. At the time I thought it was synchronous.

Or, as clif might say, qualia from the Ontology. A meaningful coincidence. (Jung, Cayce)

I watched it hoping to gain a better understanding of "Hilbert Space". I'm not sure if it would fit in what you are describing in your body of work?

I watched it back in early April and was taking in a lot of topic-related information at the time. I'll need to revisit it again this winter. I remember the discussion between Curt Jaimungal and Jacob Barande focused much on the concept/idea/theory of an "indivisible stochastic approach".

The word stochastic is not a commonly used word. In fact, the only other time I've come across it was in Joseph Chilton's Pearce book, Strange Loops and Gestures of Creation. Majestic random synergy.

I'm bringing this up at the outset of this conversation to see what you, and others, think. And just to hold in consideration as we move forward. Is it complimentary to you're approach?

Posted by panpsych (here)
Why is this relevant to Avalon?

Because the interface between consciousness and anomalous phenomena—especially UAP encounters—is precisely where this framework applies. Many of these interactions appear to involve consciousness as a co-active element. Observers frequently report that the phenomenon responds to intention, expectation, or focused attention.

The UAP is not just an object in the sky; it becomes an interactive event in the observer’s reality.

Standard physics has no language for that. But a consciousness-coupled framework might.

Rather than treating psi, UAP contact, and cosmological fine-tuning as unrelated curiosities, this proposal suggests they are all facets of the same interface problem: how consciousness interacts with the fundamental structure of reality.

I agree. This is a quintessential Roundtable topic for Avalon!

Along with Edyta's thread as Sue mentions,

Posted by Sue (Ayt) (here)
I feel so grateful that you have found your way to Project Avalon, Edyta.
Your thread almost seems to have revived and rekindled the Project Avalon collective consciousness spiritual fires!

Or possibly the embers are igniting everywhere.

The timing certainly seems relevant.

Attachment 55455

Edina, thank you—that’s a beautifully considered response, and I appreciate the care you’ve taken in thinking this through.

I also think you’re right to frame this as a timing issue, not just in terms of this particular thread, but in terms of where the collective discourse sits right now. There does seem to be a shift. Maybe "reality" is ready to be looked at as an integrated field again, rather than as discrete silos we dissect separately. Your phrase "poignant for the times" really landed with me.

And I can’t pretend I haven’t noticed the same theme blossoming from multiple nodes here recently—Edyta’s thread being a prime example. When ideas start resonating across conversations like this, it’s hard not to see a pattern emerge. Whether that’s synchronicity, morphic resonance, or just the natural flowering of inquiry when the moment is ripe, I tend to treat it as part of the data. Sometimes the field does echo back.

On the Hilbert space point: honestly, don’t worry about the math side of it. That’s window dressing compared to the real conceptual move. All I’m really saying is: imagine the "space of possibilities" that quantum physics already describes, but extend it so it also contains conscious experience as a real part of the structure, not just something that "happens after" the physics is done. Instead of matter producing mind, mind is already baked into the state space.

From that perspective, your "indivisible stochastic approach" feels like it’s probing a similar borderland. In standard models, stochasticity just means randomness. But here, there’s a meaningful distinction: this isn’t pure randomness; it’s structured uncertainty. The system unfolds in a way that seems probabilistic, but not detached from context, attention, or intention. In fact, that’s why UAPs (and psi phenomena) don’t behave like passive external objects—they behave like co-active processes, as if reality is selecting from its range of outcomes in dialogue with consciousness itself.

So yes, I think you’re onto something when you link the stochastic ideas from Jaimungal & Barande to this. The key move is to realise that the probabilistic layer of the universe might be where consciousness plugs in; not as a secondary observer, but as part of the machinery.

Winter study sessions sound like a good idea. But I’d wager you’re already doing the real work just by asking the right questions.

[edina]

Michel made a comment here, that as I read it felt relevant to this discussion, as well. (Emphasis is mine, what is standing out to me.)

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
This implicit epistemological appreciation – which I like to call an “anti-Ockham’s razor” approach – is at the core of all truth-finding quests or research adventures. One has to make sure that one provides right from the start for the widest imaginable context for the explanation of the facts and never let out of sight those wider contexts: the answer one will come up with to explain the facts will never be of an “Ockham-razor clean” type (which will quite soon prove insufficient, and hence wrong) but of a “Popperian hypothesis” type, i.e. take on a form that provides for, and welcomes, adaptations to future facts that appear connected to the ones to be explained, and those facts will come from the wider context – redistributing the balance among the explanatory elements, and turning the previous “appendix” into the core and new “centre” of the explanation.

Anti-Ockham's razor. I've never heard of that. (Sort of like Anti-Fragile... )

To apply a camera analogy, attention, or maybe choice in perception, becoming intentional in applying perceptual capacities, can open or narrow the aperture of conscious awareness.

Just parking this here to mull this over in context of this conversation, too.

I hope you don't mind Michel.

[Edyta Radomska]

Thank you for this thread.

I am glad that my earlier statement was an inspiration for you to raise such an interesting topic.

You can see that we have similar lines of thinking - although you dress it in the language of physics and mathematics, and I dress it more in experience and intuition.

I don't have enough knowledge to comment on formulas or scientific references, but the direction itself – what you're trying to capture – is very close to me.

This is probably the best thing that can happen in a place like Avalon: different people, different styles, and yet one common theme.

[panpsych]

Posted by Edyta Radomska (here)
Thank you for this thread.

I am glad that my earlier statement was an inspiration for you to raise such an interesting topic.

You can see that we have similar lines of thinking - although you dress it in the language of physics and mathematics, and I dress it more in experience and intuition.

I don't have enough knowledge to comment on formulas or scientific references, but the direction itself – what you're trying to capture – is very close to me.

This is probably the best thing that can happen in a place like Avalon: different people, different styles, and yet one common theme.

I couldn’t agree more.

It’s exactly those common truths underlying different perspectives that draw those of us who’ve been paying attention to Avalon.

Some of us dress it in the language of physics and formal models, some in lived experience, some in intuitive or personal encounter—but often, when you strip away the surface, we’re circling the same underlying reality.

I think it’s part of our shared mission as crew members of spaceship Earth to discover those fundamental truths about the reality we share.

The thing that keeps pulling me most strongly back to Avalon is rarely anything so novel as "news." It’s more often a deep sense of recognition and familiarity when one of those truths sinks in.