Research Program / Claims / unconscious-9
Science should openly accept legitimate research on the subconscious, inner reality, and related fields, rather than treating it as superstition.
科学应开放地接纳对潜意识、内在现实等领域的合法研究，而不是将其视作迷信。
Concept unconscious · Domain Belief Dynamics and Mind–Body Regulation · methodological suggestion · interface 3/3 · testability 3/3 · status untested · ★ fundable
This program treats the Seth Material as a source of hypotheses, not as doctrine to be validated. Lead dossiers are AI-compiled from the corpus with a book-and-session citation after every statement; literature reviews are AI web-search summaries whose references were all DOI-verified against Crossref; the agenda draft is an AI synthesis. None of it is Seth's original text, and none of it represents scientific consensus. English fields are machine-translated; the Chinese text is authoritative.
Seth sources (book §session)
Adjudicating experiment
This is a research policy recommendation and cannot be directly adjudicated like a mechanistic claim; a metascientific experiment is feasible: randomly assign approximately 300 quality-matched research abstracts to either neutral cognitive labels or anomalous experience labels, evaluated anonymously by about 300–500 researchers, measuring method quality, fundability, and credibility scores. Use cross-assignment so the same reviewer does not see both labels for the same abstract; project duration 12 months; additionally track registration rates and replication rates for different fields over 3 years. This experiment tests label bias, not the truth of anomalous content.
Suggested paper title
Topic Labels and Peer-Review Judgments of Methodologically Matched Consciousness Research Proposals
What it would overturn
This will not overturn mechanistic hypotheses in the natural sciences; if stable label bias appears, it would modify the idealized assumption that review judgments are determined solely by study design quality and evidence.
Candidate labs / funders
Balázs Aczél，Eötvös Loránd University; Zoltan Kekecs，Transparent Psi Project; University of Virginia，Division of Perceptual Studies
Specificity of Seth's formulation
There is no unique experiential prediction; it is compatible with open science principles of evaluating research by method and evidence.
Note
The four-category system has no "normative recommendation," so this is provisionally listed as untested; unconscious processing is already a formal research field, and [University of Virginia related institution](https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/academic-publications/) also publicly publishes anomalous experience research; accepting research does not mean accepting conclusions.
Cite: Future Mind Institute, Seth Material Research Agenda, claim unconscious-9, https://www.seth.org.cn/en/research/claims/unconscious-9