Enhanced NHI Taxonomy: Giving Meaning to the Buzzwords

[panpsych]

Lately, there’s been a proliferation of new terminology in the discourse around anomalous phenomena—particularly in relation to UAPs and the wider "contact" problem.

Terms like Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) and Interdimensional Hypothesis are suddenly everywhere. They’re on the lips of mainstream commentators, government briefings, and podcast guests alike.

A few examples for reference:

LATimes on Congress taking UFOs seriously
Avi Loeb: “Taking a Gamble on Anomalies in the Sky”
Congressional UAP hearing video
Wiki: DoD’s All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

These terms are now part of the furniture—but too often they’re left vague. "NHI" becomes a catch-all without clear structure, and "interdimensional" gets waved around like seasoning in a stew no one knows the recipe for.

So I thought it was worth trying to give these labels some content.

Below is an Enhanced Taxonomy of Non-Human Intelligences (NHI) I developed earlier this year. The idea is simple: if we’re going to talk seriously about NHI, we need categories that clarify what we actually mean.

The taxonomy breaks NHIs into four layers:

1. Origin: Where did they first arise? (Extra-Terrestrial, Trans-Terrestrial, Terran, Interdimensional)
2. Composition & Form: Are they biological, technological, hybrid, or something more exotic?
3. Interaction & Motivation: Why do they engage with us (if they do)? Observational? Benevolent? Indifferent? Exploitative?
4. Technological & Energy Scale: How advanced are they? (Type 0 through Type IV+ on a Kardashev spectrum, including possible post-material forms.)

Full Document (PDF):

Enhanced NHI Taxonomy (PDF)

Why bother with this?

Because "NHI" shouldn’t just be a narrative placeholder—it should point to something with definable dimensions.

This taxonomy is a tool to help us:

- Discuss UAP and contact phenomena in clearer terms
- Avoid collapsing every unknown into one vague category
- Open space for both scientific modeling and speculative extension, without surrendering to incoherence

I’m not claiming this is the final word—far from it. But if we’re going to keep using this nomenclature, we might as well try to say something specific when we do.

This isn’t about forcing anomalous encounters into strict categories; it’s about giving us a coordinate system to describe them. An entity might register as Interdimensional on the origin axis, Hybrid on the composition axis, Exploitative on the motivation axis, and Type II+ on the technological scale—all at once. The goal is to map, not to flatten.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts, additions, or challenges.