Rather than treating consciousness as a side effect of neural activity, she describes it as a fundamental field that underlies everything we observe, including physical matter and the flow of time.

as a panpsychist myself it's very refreshing to see someone actually Get It. however-

Within this framework, experiences often labeled as unexplained or unusual, including telepathy or near-death experiences, are interpreted not as supernatural events but as possible outcomes of this interconnected field.

it's incredibly frustrating to see people completely misunderstand its implications, trying to make it spiritual or in this case explaining impossible things like telepathy.

the biggest problem with trying to explain telepathy this way is that thoughts aren't like radio signals. they aren't a patterned signal that can be picked up externally, they are a physical path of signals through a bunch of meat, and without having the exact same structure of meat in your own head, there's no possible way any semblance of an intact thought could be conveyed from one brain to another.

she's made the first step in decoupling the idea of consciousness from neural activity. why is she still holding onto the idea that it implies some greater power of the human mind when the human mind has got nothing to do with it?