I would suppose that the critical issue you broach here is the nature of inference, rather than whether or not something is categorized as 'science' by oppression-minded outsiders.
Something is science under two conditions of inference:
1. Its method of incremental inference reduces complicated-ness to a reduced set thereof (less entropy of knowledge), aka DEDUCTION, and
2. Its method of incremental inference establishes a triangulation of consilience from multiple disciplines, which points in a specific parsimonious direction, aka INDUCTION
I believe this is what Popper missed. A topic itself (nor the subject therein) is never the delineation of whether or not something is 'science/non-science'. Thinking of a topic (such as extended consciousness) as being 'not-science' was a little trick Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer and Steven Novella played on us in the past decades. Most rational people reject this 1972 version of fake skepticism now.
In other words, UFO's is not 'pseudoscience' - conclusion that extended consciousness exists is not 'pseudoscience' - rather, improper scientific method and a pretense of speaking on behalf of scientific consensus (PANDUCTION and ABDUCTION, respectively) - those are what constitute pseudoscience. Most of the time, errant UFO/ghost/consciousness conjecture constitutes merely non-science, and not in reality, pseudoscience. No one therein is pretending to be doing science, nor speaking on its behalf.
Bruce and Daniella can address extended consciousness, and still be conducting science. They just need to be conscious of their mode and type of inference employed.