In the two weeks after the conference, 177 of you answered our feedback survey. Thank you. Here is what you told us, the praise and the criticism alike, and what we take from it for the next conference.
The ratings
Four questions were answered on a scale of 1 to 5. The bars show how many people gave each mark.
The venue and the meals were rated by those who attended in person. Within each card the longest bar is the most frequent mark.
In your words
A few of the comments, as they were written, chosen to show the range of what we read.
Thank you for an amazing conference. It was among the very best I've ever attended.
The transdisciplinary nature of the conference was so valuable to look at one question through different lenses.
I really enjoyed the combined exposure to the hard science as well as the paranormal discussions. We need to continue to pursue both in an open and collegial way.
“Crazy” ideas make this conference unique, but they should be argued better.
The schedule was a bit intense. An extended lunch period or an afternoon “play” activity could be very helpful in allowing the brain to store, organize and reset.
We need much more healthy choices, and also vegetarian options at every meal.
The talks that stood out
149 people named the talks they remembered best, and many simply answered “too many to list”. The names that came up most often:
Among the sessions, the quantum biology and microtubule talks, “Non-Local Consciousness & Psi”, the psychedelics sessions, the brain organoids, the talk on water, the closing panel “Is AI Conscious?” and the Sunday workshops were cited again and again. The recordings of the Paradise Ballroom sessions and the slides and posters shared by the presenters are on the presenter material page.
What worked, and what we will improve
Three open questions drew between 132 and 158 written answers each. We read all of them.
What you asked us to keep
- The mix of disciplines. Neuroscience, physics, philosophy, contemplative practice and the study of psi in one program, open to people who are not specialists.
- San Diego and Paradise Point. A relaxed setting by the water, a helpful staff, and a Sunday start that leaves the weekend to arrive.
- October. Several of you prefer the fall to the spring.
- The community. The conversations between sessions, the receptions and the dinner, the experiential sessions, and many attendees under fifty.
- The poster prize. Winners presenting in a concurrent session was new this year and was welcomed.
- Online attendance and recordings. Appreciated by those who could not travel.
What we will work on
- Food. Fresher and healthier choices, vegetarian, vegan and gluten-free options at every meal, a breakfast that is not only pastries, and dietary needs asked at registration.
- A lighter schedule. Shorter days, fewer talks, fewer sessions running at the same time, and more time to talk and to meet people.
- Questions at the microphone. Moderated, short, and open to more people; more time for discussion, panels and debates between opposing views.
- Posters. A larger room, posters on display all day, and fewer posters per evening.
- The online experience. More rooms streamed, better picture and sound, and questions taken from the chat.
- Clearer talks. Fewer slides, a plain-language opening for non-specialists, and a firmer standard of evidence for speculative claims.
- Cost. More affordable lodging nearby, for students in particular.
The program: more of what, less of what
150 people answered this question, and they did not agree, which is the nature of this conference.
Asked for more often: experimental neuroscience and data; debates between theories of consciousness, physicalists included; contemplative practice, healing and first-person experience; philosophy of mind; psi research, presented with its critics; more women and more young researchers on the main stage.
Asked for less often: a main stage weighted toward microtubules and Orch OR, although others asked for more of exactly that; talks that speculate without data; artificial intelligence, for some. Many wrote that the balance was right and asked us not to change it.