Education and Mind: A New Look

Education has accepted a reductive explanation for the phenomenon of mind, thinking that the brain is the source of consciousness. It has also accepted the Copernican principle, wherein humans are seen to be mediocre. However, many academics now argue that conscious mind is exterior to or added upon the functional states of the brain, as nothing in the brain is seen to produce consciousness. As a result, they claim mind to be a material phenomenon existing in the wider universe. In addition, the hard sciences have been forced to rethink mind and reality. This is due to both the collapse of superpositional wavefunction in quantum mechanics by observation of conscious mind and the statistically impossible, complex environment humans inhabit. Physicists now argue that mind, life, and the cosmos are intertwined and participatory, rather than accept a mind-independent reality. One result of a reexamination of mind is that humanity must be seen as an intrinsic good, for human minds are universal participatory causal agents. Educators can, therefore, use a theory of material conscious mind to provide an objective ethical foundation for excellence in teaching, as well as offer a better theoretical foundation for pedagogies and qualitative research. In addition, teaching practices that encourage innovative thinking should include the utilization of fuzzy mental categories and phenomenal raw feels. Educators teach material conscious mind, and pedagogies that utilize this worldview will create the best educational environment.

EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 1 Education and Mind: A New Look by Roger Cook A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Masters of Education Westminster College Salt Lake City, Utah April 2016 EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 2 Abstract Education has accepted a reductive explanation for the phenomenon of mind, thinking that the brain is the source of consciousness. It has also accepted the Copernican principle, wherein humans are seen to be mediocre. However, many academics now argue that conscious mind is exterior to or added upon the functional states of the brain, as nothing in the brain is seen to produce consciousness. As a result, they claim mind to be a material phenomenon existing in the wider universe. In addition, the hard sciences have been forced to rethink mind and reality. This is due to both the collapse of superpositional wavefunction in quantum mechanics by observation of conscious mind and the statistically impossible, complex environment humans inhabit. Physicists now argue that mind, life, and the cosmos are intertwined and participatory, rather than accept a mind-independent reality. One result of a reexamination of mind is that humanity must be seen as an intrinsic good, for human minds are universal participatory causal agents. Educators can, therefore, use a theory of material conscious mind to provide an objective ethical foundation for excellence in teaching, as well as offer a better theoretical foundation for pedagogies and qualitative research. In addition, teaching practices that encourage innovative thinking should include the utilization of fuzzy mental categories and phenomenal raw feels. Educators teach material conscious mind, and pedagogies that utilize this worldview will create the best educational environment. Keywords: Material conscious mind, observer effect, fuzzy categories, participatory causal agent, intrinsic good, innovative thinking skills. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 3 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4 Topic and Purpose of Study .................................................................................... 5 Potential Significance of Study ............................................................................... 7 Statement of Researcher and Theoretical Framework ............................................ 10 Major Questions under Discussion ......................................................................... 11 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................... 11 Chapter I: Consciousness and Mind ............................................................................ 13 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 13 The Nature of Consciousness.................................................................................. 14 The Easy and Hard Problems of Consciousness ............................................... 15 Operations of the Brain and the Inability To Explain Consciousness ............. 21 Limitations of Human Knowledge and the Hard Problem ..................................... 23 Some Aspects of the Mind are Exterior To or Added-Upon Brain States .............. 25 Implications for Educators ...................................................................................... 30 Chapter II: Mind and Reality ....................................................................................... 32 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 32 Mind and the Quantum Mechanical World ............................................................ 35 The Two-Slit Experiment and Superposition ................................................... 37 Observation and the Collapse of the Superpositional State .............................. 39 What is Observation? ................................................................................. 41 There Is no Substitute for Mind in Intelligent Observation ........................ 42 Consciousness and Objective Reality ......................................................... 44 Complexity and the Reductive Material Paradigm ................................................ 47 Complexity in the Universe .............................................................................. 49 Complexity in Earth's Environment ................................................................. 52 Conclusions of Complexity..................................................................................... 57 Alternative Views on Complexity .................................................................... 59 A New Ethical Foundation for Education ......................................................... 61 Chapter III: Educating Material Conscious Mind: A Preliminary Theory ................... 66 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 66 Functional Processing and Categorical Understanding .......................................... 67 Fuzzy Categories and Innovative Thinking ............................................................ 69 Gestalt Properties and Categorization ............................................................... 71 Cognitive Modules and Token Transfer of Information ......................................... 74 Fuzzy Categories, Phenomenal Feels, and Pedagogy ............................................. 75 Common Core Theoretical Foundations ................................................................. 78 The Subjective Nature of Learning ......................................................................... 79 Conclusions of Educating Material Conscious Mind ............................................ 81 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 82 References ............................................................................................................... 85 EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 4 Education and Mind: A New Look Introduction What if it were suggested that the thing most intimately familiar is also the most foreign and mysterious, somewhat otherworldly, even a little mystical? And what if it were claimed that this same thing helps to create objective reality, perhaps even adding organized complexity to the universe? One might think that one has stepped into a medieval monastery or similar religious order if such were claimed, but this is not the case. The discussion about to take place concerns something that readers know directly, for all experience their own minds. Issues and questions related to mind turn out to be complex, vastly more so than would have been imagined just a few decades ago. Indeed, multiple disciplines unashamedly and without reservation claim that conscious mind is the one and only thing that completely defies all reductive analysis, hence the claim that it seems otherworldly and mysterious (Chalmers, 1996; Nagel, 1974, 2010; Heil, 2013). But if any of the above claims are true, then new explanations of what mind is and how it operates become paramount. This is of particular interest to educators, for they need to better know what is being educated, better understand what is taking place in the educational process, and better describe what educational methods are best. The dominant view of the last century was that the brain is being educated-also known as cognitivism (Merriam & Bierema, 2014)-and educators almost universally hold the same view today (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008; Zull, 2011). Consider a conversation that might take place if a full accounting is made of what is taught. If educators were to explain what-or whom-is taught, the quick answer would be learners. But if pressed further, they would admit that most of what makes up a human is EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 5 not being taught. After all, no effort is made to teach livers or hearts, so they would argue that they are teaching minds. And if pressed again, they would likely say that they are teaching the human organ that produces mind, including consciousness and higher-order cognition: They are teaching the brain. They also would claim that the mental states of the brain are grounded in biological processes, and these in turn are grounded in the material environment that rises from the fundamental forces of the universe. What if it were the case, however, that causal linkage between the brain and mind could not be found? What if explanations of some aspects of mind actually seem foreign to the processes of the brain? What if mind somehow participates in making the potential actual? These questions, in fact, reflect a steadily growing consensus from multiple disciplines about the nature of mind and reality over the last 30 years. Questions related to mind and the nature of reality are raised in groundbreaking works such as Chalmers' 1996 and 2010 publications, Conscious Mind and Character of Consciousness, Nagel's 2010 work, Mind and Cosmos, Barrow, Davies, and Harper's edited anthology, Science and Ultimate Reality (2004), Lanza and Berman's 2010 work, Biocentrism, and Leslie and Kuhn's 2013 work, Mystery of Existence, amongst other texts cited in this thesis. Mind and its relationship to the brain and the universe end up being mysterious and, it seems, inexplicable, at least in terms of the reductive material paradigm that would give normative material/naturalistic explanations to all existing phenomena. Topic and Purpose of the Study What is discussed in the following pages is an overview of groundbreaking work done on the nature of mind, utilizing a wide range of academic disciplines, and implications for educators. The first chapter includes consciousness and cognition, EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 6 including the revolutionary argument that mind in some manner is added to, not the product of, the functional processes of the brain (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Heil, 2013; Lycan, 2012). In chapter two, attention is paid to the phenomenon in quantum physics known as the collapse of the superpositional wave function, caused merely by the observation of an intelligent observer in quantum mechanical theory (Barrow et al. 2004; Rae, 1996; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011), and what many leading theorists in cosmology, quantum physics, and astrophysics argue is mind-created complexity in the universe (Barrow et al., 2004; Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2010; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Nagel, 2010). Based on the previous suppositions, it is argued that a new basis for human morality can be put in place, as the human mind is intrinsically good in and of itself. Effective methods of education must be found and fostered, as that which is being educated is intrinsically good. Each of these make the claim that mind must be reexamined, for it seems radically different than previously thought. Based on theories of functional processes of the brain in conjunction with the nature of mind, the third and final chapter puts forward preliminary epistemological theory linking mind and brain, including best methods in education. Included in this discussion are current theories on how the brain processes information (Bechtel, Abrahamsen & Graham, 1998; Cummins, 1989; Thagard, 2012), how language passes information using token transfers of knowledge (Fodor, 1983), and how the conscious mind and brain together create innovative ideas by utilizing open-ended fuzzy categories (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Argued in the chapter is that the most effective way to access conscious mind is through the raw phenomenal feels that accompany sense perception. So teaching practices that create and maintain positive phenomenal feels are EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 7 those that will capture the attention of the conscious mind and lead to effective learning (Davis et al., 2008; Zull, 2011). The overall conclusion of this line of argumentation is that education can foster innovative, out-of-the-box thinking in the minds of learners by using the natural processes of the conscious mind and the functional processes of the brain. Potential Significance of the Study One could ask why this has not been a topic of discussion in education; why have effectively none in education tackled some of the more mysterious aspects of mind? Part of the reason is that the topic is speculative and controversial. It is speculative in that it steps into the realms of the very small-and very strange-in quantum physics, enters into the branches of philosophy, cosmology, and astrophysics dealing with the very nature of reality-metaphysics and physics-directly engages enigmatic mind, and entertains epistemological theories dealing with fuzzy categories and idea formation emerging from psychology, philosophy of mind, and neuroscience. Each is a step away from ordinary human experience, from that which seems to be concrete and knowable, so it is no surprise that the much more ethereal topics of mind and reality and categorization have not been major topics of conversation in educational circles. It is controversial, as not all scientists and other academics agree on what causes phenomena such as the collapse of the wavefunction of objects in superposition (Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011) or complexity in the universe (Nagel, 2010) or consciousness itself (Chalmers 1996, 2010). Education has paid rapt attention, on the other hand, to neuroscience and brain structure in relation to how humans learn (Zull, 2011), for this is concrete and knowable and immediately applicable. Yet, as soon as it EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 8 becomes clear that previous theory has fallen far short of offering a satisfactory explanation of mind and the educational process, it is time to directly step into the controversial and speculative. Part of the reason the collapse of the superpositional wavefunction has not been a topic explored by education is that is has only recently become a topic that physicists were even willing to engage (Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). After all, it did not seem proper for physics, the Cadillac of sciences in the twentieth century, a science grounded in the objective and certain, to concern itself with the emphatically subjective, uncertain, and weird found in quantum physics: a study of the world of the very small (Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). Indeed, accepting the weird phenomenon of human observation creating objective reality means that the universe and all objects in it-if they could even exist-would be in flux, a state of superposition, nothing more than a statistical wave of probability if there is no intelligent observation, at least according to interpretations of quantum mechanics. And studying such weirdness, according to Rosenblum and Kuttner (2011), would ruin any future career in physics, or so it was argued at that time. At the same time, this branch of physics forms the basis for all theories of observable material reality, so it was only a matter of time until a full-blown examination of the wildly weird quantum world began. As strange as the science itself is, significant numbers of cosmologists, astrophysicists, and quantum theorists argue that conscious mind is the basis of objective reality, due to the collapse of the superpositional state by the observation of intelligent observers (Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Steinburg, 2004). It follows that quantum physics dealing with mind and consciousness might yield valuable information to educators teaching the minds of conscious learners. Yes, the unusual and EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 9 weird is not easily discussed, but if the minds of learners actually help form the basis of reality, it seems high time for educators to begin a related discussion amongst themselves. In a similar manner, the role of mind in the universe is generally new in academic circles. Mind in the past was thought to be the product of millions of years of brain evolution, but philosophers such as Nagel (2010) and Chalmers (1996, 2010) point out that mind seems primal, archetypal, even above the processes of the body and brain. One significant conclusion that can be reached from this is that conscious mind is part of the material cosmos itself, and it interacts with the physical processes of the brain. If it were the case that a good candidate for the creation of mind or any close-to-reasonable candidate were found at all then mind would be relegated to the physical, to states of consciousness created by the brain. Currently, no such candidate appears (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Heil, 2013). The conclusion reached in this thesis is that educators teach consciously aware material mind, an entity or entities that in some manner participate with both the brain and the larger universe. Additionally, education currently tends to encourage qualitative studies over quantitative ones, the subjective and more speculative over the objective, demonstrable, and quantified (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). Why is this? The answer is that it is recognized that the vagaries and subjective nature of human psychology make objective quantitative analysis extraordinarily difficult. If it is admitted that the peculiarities of individual humans force educational research into the more speculative and subjective, as no two people think alike, it ought to raise questions of why speculative questions related to mind have not surfaced before now. Why are no two people exactly alike if all effectively EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 10 have the same functional mental hardware? Why is education not an exact science? The best answer to these questions, it seems, lies in the fact that people are brains and mind; this is where the evidence leads today. If new theory based on science and observation seems to better explain the nature of mind, even if it is somewhat speculative and controversial, then it seems that it should be considered. If educators have themselves turned to the subjective and speculative in order to make research more relevant, it stands to reason that they ought to figure out why they have been forced to do so. Statement of Researcher and Theoretical Framework The author of this thesis teaches philosophy on a university level and has a deep interest in epistemology-the study of how one learns or knows-along with the nature of reality, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and a strong emphasis in the sciences and the scientific method. As a result, it should be expected that the language and logic of philosophy and evidence from the sciences are present throughout the paper. However, it is not held that science can answer all questions or is above scrutiny. Indeed, a postmodern worldview (Tarnus, 1991) is in place throughout most of the paper, as it is held that fundamental questions about the nature of reality are forever outside the realm of the knowable by humans. At the same time, it is held that knowledge-defined as those theories that best conform to evidence-accumulates, with scientific theory giving better and better insight into the nature of the real (Trigg, 2015). Indeed, the paper is largely based on the gathering body of knowledge created by science over the last century, most of which has been put in place in the last 30 years, including the discovery of things that tend to defy materialist/naturalistic explanations. Science and the theory it EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 11 produces are enormously informative, and they can explain much of what humanity experiences. However, they cannot tell us everything, and they are not infallible. Major Questions under Discussion Here are the major questions that will be asked in this paper supporting the argument that mind is that which is being educated:  What is it that is being educated?  How is mind different than the brain?  What is the nature of consciousness?  How does mind affect the very nature of reality?  What role, if any, does mind play in ordering reality?  Can an objective moral foundation be found for excellence in education?  How do functional processes aid in learning?  What role do token transmissions of language play in learning?  What role do fuzzy mental categories play in learning?  How do educators best use phenomenal raw feels to gain the attention of mind?  How does a new understanding of mind help explain subjective learning? Limitations of the Study The intent of this paper is to introduce and offer some perspective on important issues related to mind and deal with implications for educators. It is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of any of the major issues under discussion, for wide-ranging, multi-disciplinary work in each of the areas under discussion has already been done and is readily accessible to readers. It is neither a quantitative nor qualitative study, as it only deals with evidence and argument immediately related to mind and education of mind. It EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 12 is, in effect, a review of academic literature related to mind, reality, and what educational methods are best in light of current higher-order cognitive theory. The intent is to draw attention to why educators need to reconsider mind and how this may affect pedagogy in positive ways. It will leave open a number of issues that cannot be readily answered, such as the exact nature of material mind in the cosmos. It will highlight current, promising theories of the phenomenon of mind and deal with implications for educators. It will not make any attempt to offer full resolution of any problems relating to mind or reality, but it will argue what should be considered if current theory continues to show merit. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 13 Chapter I Consciousness and Mind Introduction Mind is a thing that needs to be explained, but it must be admitted that some aspects of mind are outside of the realm of the knowable. In particular, the extraordinary minds of higher-order cognitive beings need scientific explanation, as it seems the most remarkable thing that is known in the vast universe is the complex, surprising, and baffling human mind (Rae, 1996). It would seem that a satisfactory explanation for this should be largely taken care of by now, as an enormous effort in psychology, philosophy of mind, neurobiology, cognitive science, and neuroscience has been undertaken to explain how it arises and operates (Bechtel et al., 1998). On the one hand, brain states that participate with mind are, for the most part, known or largely within the realm of the knowable. Indeed, remarkable breakthroughs have taken place in cognitive science and neuroscience that help explain the materially based biological processes of mind (Chalmers, 1996; Thagard, 2012). On the other hand, two directly related aspects of mind that together constitute the phenomenon of consciousness have to this point defied all explanatory attempts (Chalmers, 1996; Lycan, 2012; Heil, 2013), but they are also the most important things to explain: consciousness itself and the phenomenal raw feels that appear with perception. This chapter will discuss the problems of mind related to consciousness, specifically the easy and hard problems of consciousness, and offer as a possible solution the notion that mind is in some manner exterior to or added-upon the neurological states of the brain. The nature of consciousness-defined as being self-aware and having EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 14 phenomenal experience-will first be discussed. This will be followed by the easy and hard problems of consciousness-the operations of the brain and an inability to explain consciousness-and a brief discussion on how the limitations of human knowledge have contributed to the hard problem. After that will come an analysis of the increasingly accepted notion that some aspects of mind are exterior to or added-upon brain states. The final section will deal with implications for educators, as it becomes clear that educators teach the mind, not the brain. The Nature of Consciousness The only things humans truly know are consciousness and the raw feels of phenomenal experience. Personal experience of all humans shows that they are not aware of the inner workings of the brain, either autonomic systems that regulate the body or those systems that contribute to consciousness. The only things they know, the only things they directly experience, are levels of self-awareness and the swirl of phenomenal perceptions that inundate this awareness (Heil, 2013). To offer clarification, consciousness is defined as what is experienced when one is said to be self-aware and/or reflective, including states such as daydreaming or waking up; phenomenal raw feels are those perceptual impressions directly experienced by conscious individuals (Chalmers, 2010; Heil, 2013). Included in phenomenal feels are the experiences of pain, the color yellow, and the sensation of touch. Importantly, nothing else is known directly. All knowledge of things exterior to one's consciousness, including dogs, words, music, and the wafting aroma of apple pie, are filtered through the perceptual processes of the brain. These are experienced as phenomenal raw feels. Together, consciousness and phenomenal raw feels constitute the entirety of human awareness. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 15 Phenomenal feels are described as raw, as they are experienced directly by mind without reflection (Chalmers, 1996). Stubbing one's toe leads to immediate pain; taking a bite of ripe watermelon inundates one with a sensation of sweetness; stepping out of the cold into a heated room causes a feeling of warmth to wash over one. When these happen, one normally does not think about them; one only experiences them. If the phenomenal feel is significant, very strong, very persistent, or brand new, however, then mind will have reason to immediately reflect on the experience (Zull, 2011). Nevertheless, the phenomenon itself is raw, directly perceived by mind. People know of their own consciousness and phenomenal feels from a first-person perspective, for they intimately know their own thoughts and experiences (Chalmers, 1996; Heil, 2012). Any who are now reading this paper, for example, find themselves directly conscious of the experience, and they are fully aware of the fact that the words gain meaning quite rapidly, as they continue reading. They may have a slight headache or an itch or some other feeling as they do so, for such phenomenal experiences invariably accompany consciousness. None need to have it explained what it is like to be conscious or have raw feels, for they are directly experienced. An explanation of how they arise, however, is notoriously difficult to explain, and this becomes part of the problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996). The easy and hard problems of consciousness. The depth and scope of human knowledge is quite remarkable, but it has one glaring omission: the consciousness associated with mind. It is astonishing that theoretical physics is able to offer a compelling explanation of the first microseconds of the universe and geology describe in impressive detail the interior of the Earth. Psychology and neuroscience offer good EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 16 explanations for a host of mental phenomena, including how damage to various areas of the brain impairs cognitive function. Philosophy, even though it deals with things in a more abstract way, has made impressive contributions to an explanation of language and of mind itself. It seems that each of the academic disciplines have given some level of insight into just about everything. The glaring exception to this great leap forward in human knowledge is mind and the consciousness associated with it, making it the most mysterious phenomenon encountered. True, some other aspects of the universe humans inhabit only allow brief, tantalizing glimpses of the real, and humans cannot see beyond their own localized space-time, but mind stands apart as uniquely impenetrable and unknowable. Indeed, an explanation of mind and consciousness is unquestionably the single most difficult issue facing science, psychology, and philosophy (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). Problems associated with mind and consciousness-including problems related to conscious observation of superpositional states and the creation of objective reality and mind as a participatory causal agent in the cosmos (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rae, 1996), both discussed in chapter two-have stubbornly refused to yield any ground. It is acknowledged that mind directly intersects issues that arise in the sciences, psychology and the other social sciences, and philosophy. Therefore, establishing a working theory of what mind is and how it operates remains high on a list of things that need some level of resolution. The problem of consciousness has been divided into what is called the easy and hard problems of consciousness, for some brain-related aspects of consciousness are amenable to reductive analysis and others are not (Chalmers, 1996). To give a reductive EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 17 material explanation, hereafter referred to as the reductive material paradigm, means that one can give a fully material explanation for some process (Davis, 2004) without appealing to any other factor, like a supernatural power or additional causative agent. An example is the fact that movement of continental plates nicely explains phenomena such as earthquakes and the existence of deep-ocean trenches. In like manner, long-term memory storage finds a reductive material explanation by appealing to multiple synaptic connections made between neurons after five pulses of serotonin (Zull, 2011). Explanations that describe aspects of higher-order cognition fall into the category of the easy problem, for some evidence as to what is going on has been found. On the other hand, consciousness, hereafter defined as both the phenomenon of consciousness and phenomenal raw feels, has no analogous solution, making it the hard problem, for no evidence has been found. Whereas the processes of the brain that contribute to cognition are fairly well understood, consciousness is hard because no reductive explanation has been forthcoming. Chalmers (1996) addresses the hard problem, as he argues that one cannot demonstrate that consciousness logically supervenes on the physical. By this he means that observation of neural processes will not lead an observer to expect the rise of consciousness. Numbers of processes do logically supervene on the physical, such as the example above of synaptic memory creation, but no similar conclusion for consciousness can be reached by examining mental processes. No area of the brain or cognitive module or mental process or any combination of these demonstrates how consciousness appears (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Heil, 2013; Lycan, 2012). Despite a concerted effort, no central processing unit or possible candidate that leads to consciousness has been found. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 18 The failure of several recent candidates to offer a reductive explanation for consciousness will underscore the hard problem, the first offered by Chalmers (2010). He describes the work of Crick and Koch and the proposal that "certain hertz neural oscillations in the cerebral cortex" may be associated with consciousness (p. 9). They hold this as "the oscillations seem to be correlated with awareness" (p. 9) in visual and olfactory modalities and act as a mechanism by which a binding of neurally transmitted information takes place. However, Chalmers (2010) points out that no explanation of how these oscillations lead to consciousness is found. It is quite possible that the oscillations play a vital role in binding and storage of information, but this, again, describes the easy problem, not the hard. Crick and Koch's analysis (Chalmers, 2010), even though forwarded by some as a possible candidate for consciousness, leaves the hard problem completely untouched. Lycan (2013), a vocal critic of mind being independent of the brain, also forwards two possible candidates: higher-order perception and higher-order thought. The first argues that consciousness is akin to having an internal sense, so conscious awareness of an event is due to the sensory data being supplied. In other words, the sensory data as it is processed is consciousness. One, in this case, would be consciously aware of the taste of strawberries as they are being eaten, and the memory of this experience is recorded and can be retrieved later on. The taste of strawberries is consciousness, in other words, according to Lycan (2013). However, it is important to note that no explanation is forwarded as to how mental perception, the processing of empirical data by perceptual centers in the brain, leads to the phenomenon of consciousness and related phenomenal feels. The tingling sensation one has when sipping a sparkling beverage is entirely unlike EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 19 the synapse firings seen in the brain, and so is one's awareness of the sensation. The first theory forwarded by Lycan fails to offer a successful reductive explanation. The second, higher-order thought, claims that consciousness is the operation of an internal scanner or monitor, and Lycan (2013) thinks it a more promising theory. Consciousness arises as a byproduct of a mechanism or mechanisms scanning the brain for data. Some mechanism or combination of mechanisms in the brain continually scan or monitor data-processing systems, and it is this scanning process that creates consciousness. However, no candidate for scanning or monitoring mental operations that could lead to consciousness exists. And even if one did find a candidate, one would still be faced with explaining how the processing of data leads to consciousness-it apparently does not in computers despite their established central processing units. Lycan (2013) is skeptical of the notion that consciousness exists apart from the brain, but his two most promising theories fail to offer any successful reductive analysis, leaving the hard problem unresolved. In fact, if it were not for the direct evidence each person individually has, it would be logical to deny consciousness. An example of this is the ability of sophisticated computer programs to mimic human consciousness, for they are programmed to respond to human interaction as if they were fully self-aware (Chalmers, 1996; Heil, 2012; Penrose, 1999). The computer, accessing very sophisticated software, might initiate a conversation by giving a name and asking a question: "Hi, my name is Ralph. Do you like classical music?" The response of a person at a distant terminal could be "I like Beethoven," and to respond, the computer immediately retrieves information about Moonlight Sonata, one of the composer's most famous works. It then asks: "I like the EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 20 third movement the best; how about you?" From this example, it would seem that a real, live person is at another computer terminal, but the programmed thinking is fully unconscious. In like manner, humans could be nothing more than mobile information-processing units whose data processing happens to be biological. Neither the brain nor the central nervous system as they are examined in neuroscience give any indication of consciousness, so a first-person experience is the only direct evidence any have. Without first-person experience of consciousness, it would be assumed that humans are little more than sophisticated computers in biological packaging. Instead, direct first-person experience leads to the conclusion that all humans are, in fact, conscious. An argument by analogy is initiated, and it is assumed that because one knows of one's own conscious state that all humans are likewise self-aware. But this can never be effectively tested, for, as has already been argued, one can only know one's own conscious mind. Indeed, it is possible that only one among the many that will read this paper is actually self aware, and the rest of humanity have the equivalent of computer thinking-this is also referred to as epiphenomenology. However, only a few would accept this thesis. It is assumed that all humans are conscious, for each individual human, if asked, would claim to be conscious. Significantly, no one can disprove the claim that all humans are conscious for the same reason: One can only access one's own consciousness. Note, however, that this does not budge the hard problem. It is assumed that all humans are conscious, due to personal experience, but if this is the only evidence that can be forwarded then one has admitted the intractability of the hard problem. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 21 The argument has come full circle at this point, for it returns to the hard problem of consciousness. It is assumed that all humans are self-aware due to first-person experience, but how this consciousness arises is a great mystery. Operations of the brain and the inability to explain consciousness. Continuing to use the example of computers, it seems, in fact, that mental systems do operate in a manner somewhat similar to computers. It seems clear that brains process information in a functional manner, generally operating within programmed parameters. Consider, for example, what takes place as one drives down the road. One is aware of what is taking place in front, to the sides, and to the rear of the vehicle, as information is rapidly processed from visual and auditory stimuli. One sees a car that must be passed, remembers passing cars in the past, checks mirrors and over the shoulder to make sure that the lane is clear, signals, and changes lanes, eventually passing the car. The input of sensory data can be compared to information input in a computer; the brain can be compared to the hardware; and the mental processes of higher-order cognition can be compared to computer software. Information storage and retrieval can be compared with storage and retrieval in bit information in computers. Importantly, many aspects of cognitive activity in the brain seem to be akin to what takes place in functional systems like computers (Cain, 2016; Cummins, 1989; Heil, 2013). However, the processing and conversion of symbolic data in computers leads to neither consciousness nor phenomenal feels; clearly, computers are not self-aware (Penrose, 1999). If functional systems do not lead to consciousness in computers, why should they lead to consciousness in the human brain? This is a pressing question in neuroscience and related fields, for as has been argued above, no central-processing unit EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 22 or any equivalent has been found in either the brain or the larger central nervous system (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Heil, 2013). It can be concluded that the psychological systems of the brain do process sensory data in a functional manner somewhat similar to computers, but humans have consciousness that appears apart from and in addition to functional neurological systems. To help understand the problem, consider what takes place as neurosurgeons perform delicate brain surgery, particularly during procedures that require patients to remain conscious. The surgeons carefully expose the brain in preparation for the operation, but they only see motionless brain matter; absolutely nothing they see indicates consciousness. If during the operation they look at monitors in the operating room that measure brainwave activity, the only things they will see are visual representations of synapse firings and other mental operations, not consciousness. The surgeons ask questions of patients and listen carefully to the responses during the procedure, for they need to make sure no brain damage that would impair cognition or consciousness is taking place. Indeed, in the case of consciousness, the questions must be asked, for no set of monitoring equipment or inspection of the brain allows an examination of it. Only the first-person responses of conscious patients lets neurosurgeons know that conscious states have not been compromised (Bulsara, Johnson, & Villavicencio, 2005; Taylor & Bernstein, 1999). Despite a direct examination of the brain and neural processes, neurosurgeons-and neuroscientists, neurobiologists, cognitive scientists, psychologists, and philosophers of mind could be added here as well-do not, cannot, and, it seems, never will be able to examine consciousness from the exterior. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 23 Limitations of Human Knowledge and the Hard Problem So why is the problem so hard? Why is consciousness resistant to reductive analysis? After all, enormous strides have been made in the last century in offering reductive explanations to numbers of phenomena in all areas of science (Westfall, 1996). And some might conclude that, given time, a reductive explanation will be forthcoming for consciousness and all other natural phenomena as well. Indeed, this was the optimistic position taken by many like Hawking, the noted theoretical physicist, in 1981. By the year 2000, he argued, a single, grand equation will be found that explains the fundamental nature of everything (Gribbin & White, 2016). However, what has actually transpired is that virtually impervious knowledge boundaries, or deep epistemological barriers, have begun to appear. Indeed, problems with widely accepted or so-called established theory continue to multiply across the board, including problems with generally accepted theories such as the big bang and the inception of biological life. To be concise, it now appears that there are limits to what humans can know or explain, and many things that have been taken for granted before now need reexamination (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Smolin, 2007; Trigg, 2015). The conclusion from a postmodern perspective-philosophical worldviews after 1979-is that some fundamental questions about reality will never be answered (Tarnas, 1991; Trigg, 2015). The most obvious example of this is consciousness, for which no reductive explanation has been found or likely will ever be found. To offer a complete explanation of all things requires that humans understand the very nature of reality, but humans, as indicated above, are forever bounded by the fact that they can only truly know their own consciousness, rather than having a direct knowledge of the universe EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 24 exterior to minds. The best that can be done is to examine the contents of consciousness and gain as much insight about the nature of reality from the data gleaned from phenomenal experience. Importantly, it should be noted the knowledge to be gained by this process has by no means been exhausted, for remarkable insight and application in virtually all areas of science and the social sciences continues to take place, but the inevitable conclusion is that eventually it will be. Not everything can be known, as humans are forever confined by the boundaries of their own minds. Central to the problem is that humans only see reality quite vaguely, how humans are hardwired to perceive things, rather than seeing reality as it actually is. This is the long-recognized philosophical problem of appearance versus reality, with the general understanding being that humans do not see things as they really are (Melchert, 2002). They see, at the very best, a flawed approximation of reality, or reality filtered through human senses and the limited categories of understanding hardwired into human cognition. To use the language of the eminent German philosopher Kant, humans can only know phenomena, the way things appear to human consciousness, rather than noumena, the way things actually exist (Tarnas, 1991; Trigg, 2015). To cite some examples, humans see walls and tables and chairs as solid; they claim that fire is hot and snow is cold; they say that one can have a room that is completely empty; they also describe the passage of time. These examples show how humans are hardwired to perceive things. However, today it would be argued that these merely are human appearances, and things-as-they-are cannot be known (Trigg, 2015). All seemingly solid objects are made of atoms, and all atoms are mostly empty space. Heat and cold actually are states of EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 25 energy wherein molecules vibrate either more or less rapidly. An empty room at any given moment actually has trillions upon trillions of subatomic particles traveling through it at the speed of light. Time is better described as space-time, part of the fundamental fabric of reality (Barrow & Tipler, 1996). And even though each of these examples shows that humans have developed a more sophisticated explanation of reality from more naïve assumptions held at first, it must be admitted that it is impossible for humans to know or understand fundamental aspects of reality, as humans can only truly experience the consciousness of their own minds. Inevitably, unanswerable questions have appeared in every human discipline, for impassible knowledge barriers have been and will continue to be reached. As neuroscience, cognitive science, and neurobiology are subject to the same epistemological limitations as all other human endeavors, fundamental questions relating to mind and consciousness will eventually appear and have, in fact, actually appeared. Humans can work on finding the best theory related to mind and the consciousness it produces, but it seems that they can never give mind the reductive explanation expected in the twentieth century. Some Aspects of Mind Are Exterior To or Added-Upon Brain States One direction that has been taken in philosophy of mind and related disciplines to solve the problem of consciousness is that some aspect of mind is in some manner exterior to the brain. A significant number of scholars, particularly in-but certainly not limited to-philosophy of mind, have reached the conclusion that some aspect of mind that gives rise to consciousness exists separately from the brain and body (Heil, 2013). This was at first a reluctant position, for all in academia-especially in the twentieth EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 26 century-immediately look for and expect to find reductive explanations for almost every aspect of reality. A postmodern view, as was discussed above, is now generally accepted by academia, wherein it is recognized that some fundamental questions about reality will never be answered (Chalmers, 1996; Trigg, 2015), so the reluctance has given way to a willingness to entertain theories outside of the reductive material paradigm. The failure to find a reductive explanation for consciousness in the brain has been quite profound, an epic failure in science, so positing an exterior source is a logical alternative. Consciousness, it is argued, cannot be found in the brain, for it has some material aspect that exists apart from it. Chalmers' (1996, 2010) and Nagel's (2010) version of this exterior mind is that a type of material dualism is in place, wherein one type of matter associated with the mind is conscious, and the other is not. In this dualism, the matter immediately associated with the brain and neurological states does not have the property of consciousness. A different kind of matter, not identified by Chalmers or Nagel, is thought to have the property of consciousness associated with it. Admittedly, no candidate for this mysterious matter is immediately apparent, but this does not mean that it is not within the realm of the possible that such matter exists. Indeed, consider the fact that approximately 96 percent of the universe is thought to be either dark matter or dark energy, and both are invisible to human instrumentation (Davies, 2007; Primack & Abrams, 2007). Chalmers (1996, 2010) holds that this material-with-the-property-of-consciousness supervenes-a non-causal interaction-upon the non-conscious brain, and the result is conscious humans. Nagel (2010) goes further, arguing that material mind acts as a kind of causal agent in the cosmos, but he does not hold that it is necessarily conscious. The conclusion for both EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 27 Chalmers and Nagel, therefore, is that mind is material, and it interacts in a fundamental way with the unthinking matter of the universe. This dualism is, of course, a fundamental shift in how both reality and mind is understood, but several clarifications should be put in place. This is not specifically a claim that either a soul or individuated consciousness outside the body necessarily exists. It is only a claim that a specific type of matter has the property of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996; Nagel, 2012). Note as well that the efforts of Chalmers and Nagel are not meant to step away from materialist explanations, for they are material dualists, holding that two types of matter exist. One type is conscious; the other is not. Therefore, they continue to hold that mind is material; it is just not the matter people normally experience. They also argue that not all materialist explanations are reductive: One cannot look at brain matter and find consciousness, in other words. The fact that mind does not appear in the functional processes of the brain leads them to place material mind outside of the reductive material paradigm. Proposing that matter is of two types, one conscious and one not, keeps both Nagel and Chalmers within a larger materialist camp, but they also push mind into the larger universe. Some reject Chalmers' and Nagel's proposals concerning conscious matter, but they would still hold that consciousness is added to functional properties of the brain. Heil (2013), for example, argues that consciousness is nothing more than a potential property fundamental to all matter: a proto-conscious matter is all that exists. This means that atoms or sub-atomic particles have an inherent property of consciousness, but this property is revealed only when a brain and central nervous system are in place. Once they are in place, necessary conditions are met, and consciousness can then appear. However, EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 28 it will only continue if those necessary conditions remain in place. Therefore, those that consider mind to be something exterior to or added upon the brain do not agree on what kind of matter carries consciousness or if this matter carries the potential of consciousness only or if it is the case that all matter has the inherent property of consciousness. It is, instead, a recognition that no logical reason can found to limit mind to brain states, and positing a material source for consciousness exterior to or a proto-consciousness interior to and added upon the brain is fully within the realm of the possible (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Davies, 2007; Heil 2013; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, 2004; Nagel, 2012; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). This is also not a retreat from science or the scientific method, for it is the case that scientific theories consistently need to add something extra to explain phenomena. Consider the discovery of the neutrino, a fundamental particle that helps explain the structure of an atom's nucleus. Early twentieth-century physics had found that atoms are not solid but are, in fact, made up of smaller pieces, including the nucleus. Evidence showed that the nucleus consisted of protons and neutrons, and it was impressively shown how increasing the number of these in the nucleus led to new elements and the appearance of new properties (Barrow & Tippler, 1996; Smolin, 2007). But it became clear that this account, while impressive, as it offered a reductive explanation for the elements, did not entirely add up, for the laws of energy conservation did not seem to be followed in atomic nuclei. So it was theorized that something extra needed to be added to explain the phenomenon, and the something extra was a theoretical particle called the neutrino. Since that time, not only has the neutrino been discovered, but more than one neutrino type has appeared (Barrow & Tippler, 1996; Smolin, 2007). The point here is EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 29 that when an impasse is reached, it is fully within the methodology of the scientific method to search for something else to add to the mix. In the case of consciousness, the option of searching for something exterior to the brain to explain its existence in no manner violates the scientific method or established understanding of the way the brain operates. It is not argued, for example, that the brain is not an important component of consciousness, for it is known that as soon as important areas of the brain are damaged, consciousness is affected (Chalmers, 1996). It is not argued that the brain and its various cognitive modules (Cain, 2016; Fodor, 1983) are not critical for information processing and higher-order cognitive understanding. Instead, it is argued that the properties that give rise to consciousness are not part of understood properties of the brain and its functional systems. It is argued by Chalmers (1996) that consciousness naturally supervenes on or otherwise interacts with the brain, versus the claim that it logically supervenes. This means that some aspect of material mind that is effectively exterior to neurological processes participates in some manner with the brain, the result being conscious, cogitating humans. Note at no point does the process by which the scientific method seeks to establish theory and support it with empirical evidence become undermined. Instead, a problem is seen that established reductive materialist theory is unable to answer, so a new hypothesis that takes into account and adds to established theory is put in place. Thus, the notion of mind as something added upon or exterior to the brain has gained a fairly wide following across multiple disciplines (Chalmers, 2010). No logical reason has been forwarded that would refute the notion that mind and its related consciousness is in some manner exterior to the biological processes of the brain. No EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 30 evidence is in place that shows a direct link between consciousness and the brain. Indeed, if mind is exterior to neurological states then the answer to why causal linkages based on the material processes of the brain have not been found becomes immediately apparent. They have not been found, as they do not exist, at least not in the environment that humans can observe. Implications for Educators. By this point it should be clear that rethinking mind is an important endeavor, for the normative thinking of the last half-century is directly challenged. It had been assumed in the sciences and other academic disciplines that a reductive material explanation was both possible and just around the corner. Such thinking was fueled by success across all academic disciplines, as each seemed to peel back layers of reality and offer thoroughgoing explanations for just about everything. It was assumed that fundamental forces determined the nature of matter and energy, and these led to atoms and molecules and amino acids and DNA and proteins and organisms and animals and, finally, consciousness, including conscious humans. The hard problem of consciousness shows, in a fairly dramatic fashion, that humans need to rethink everything, for they cannot explain fundamentals of themselves-or of anything else, for that matter-in any satisfactory manner. The previous materialistic explanations certainly are important, as they give a partial explanation of many things that take place in reality, but the essence of humanity, their minds, defies this type of explanation. Mind as something exterior to or added upon the brain, it seems, is needed if a more coherent explanation of all that exists is to be found. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 31 Several questions can be raised at this point: ‘So what?'; ‘Why should difficulties in mind and consciousness and missing connections to brain states affect educators?'; ‘Are not these issues for other academic fields to address?' The answer to all these is that educators will be the most effective if they are best informed as to what they are teaching. To a large extent, it seems that they have been teaching the brain (Davis et al., 2008; Zull, 2011), but this seems nonsensical if the brain is not consciously aware, and it seems that few would want to deny the existence of consciousness. A better answer is that they have been teaching mind, and more specifically, they teach the only part of mind that is individually accessible: consciousness. And they access consciousness through raw phenomenal feels, with language being key to the most effective transferal of information from conscious educator to conscious learner. Yes, other academic fields raise questions concerning mind and consciousness, but if it is the conscious mind that is being educated and not the brain then educators are directly impacted by the theories of mind that appear. The final chapter of this paper will directly address theory related to how to best access consciousness through the use of phenomenal feel and language, but it is first important to deal with two other surprising aspects of mind that have either appeared or gained new emphasis over the last several decades. The first is the phenomenon of superpositional states and changes that take place through the mere act of observation of an intelligent observer. The second is that mind may help explain complexity in the universe, if it is seen to act as a participatory causal agent. Yes, the hard problem is about to get even more complex, even harder, it seems, for mind seems to do more than just produce consciousness. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 32 Chapter II Mind and Reality Introduction To this point, it has been shown that reductive materialistic explanations were successfully being pursued in virtually all areas of science in the twentieth century. Spectacular success, for example, was seen in that one could explain the nature of each basic element merely by knowing its atomic number. Adding another proton and neutron changed the nature of an element, with similar properties appearing in a predictable fashion, and this led to a more complete cause and effect explanation of the periodic table (Barrow & Tippler, 1996). This and other explanations were fully materialistic, and a path to completely reductive explanations for everything was envisioned. Any phenomena that did not fit within this reductive materialistic paradigm tended to be ignored or treated as an oddity or merely a curiosity (Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). It seemed that humans were well on the way to finding a completely reductive explanation of everything, and that explanation was fully material. However, it became clear by the end of the twentieth century that a completely reductive explanation is effectively impossible. One would need to know the very nature of reality to ground reductive explanations. Humanity, quite obviously, does not have the capacity to peel back layers of reality and understand the way things actually are. The most prominent failure in the effort to find reductive materialistic explanations is, as has already been argued, inexplicable conscious mind. The failure in this case is profound. With other difficult questions, it is always possible that some breakthrough could happen and a new or better theory be put in place. The absence of any causal connections EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 33 between consciousness and brain function or any recognizable central processing system or any process by which mental systems lead to consciousness, however, has effectively left no analogous hope for a possible breakthrough for mind (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Heil, 2013). Likely unanswerable questions have surfaced in each scientific discipline, as reductive explanations for them are elusive, but conscious mind stands apart as the most profound and most recalcitrant of the unanswerables. This chapter will discuss additional problems related to mind, but the focus will shift to mind and the nature of reality and what appears to be a new, objective foundation for ethics and for excellence in teaching. Similar to the discussion of the hard problem of consciousness, a radical paradigm shift has effectively been forced on academia by the sciences, including quantum physics, astrophysics, cosmology, biology, and the Earth sciences (Davies, 2007; Gribbin, 2011; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Ward & Brownlee, 2000). The reductive material paradigm seems completely insufficient to the task of explaining the way the universe actually works, leading some of the most respected contemporary theorists to consider that mind is a participatory causal factor (Davies, 2004, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, 2004; Nagel, 2012; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). It seems that mind is needed to explain surprising complexities that science has found in the universe, Earth's environment, and biology. And if this is the case then ethical considerations come into play as well. The discussion on mind and reality that follows is twofold. The first is the creation of objective reality through intelligent observation. The second is the existence of stunningly complex, statistically impossible systems and what seem to be highly unlikely or impossible circumstances in the universe, Earth's environment, and biological EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 34 life. To be more specific, the first discusses how the observation of intelligent observers collapses the naturally occurring, superpositional state that fundamental particles, atoms, and larger objects would otherwise have. Second under discussion is how the complexity found in the fundamental forces of the universe, the environment of the Earth, and biological life itself seems to demand a conscious effort. Both of these lead to the same conclusion: Conscious mind seems to be needed to explain the appearance of the highly unlikely, multifaceted environment humans find themselves in. Indeed, a significant number of highly respected researchers and theorists in the hard sciences, including cosmology, quantum physics, and astrophysics, now argue that mind in some manner participates with both life and the underlying structures of reality to create the complex environment humans find themselves in. A final section will deal with implications for educators, as it seems that mind is the one, undeniable, objective good that can be found in the universe, for no concrete existence is possible without it. In other words, the fact that mind produces objective reality and seems to aid in the creation of the statistically impossible, complex systems found within it gives the consciousness found in each human a profoundly important status. Why is this? Consciousness, particularly the consciousness found in humans that allows them to be participatory causal agents, must be seen as being extraordinarily rare. As such, the ethical treatment of all learners becomes of paramount importance, for the consciousness in each and every learner is objectively and intrinsically good. Learners are good in and of themselves, for both collectively and individually they are, quite literally, the foundation of the very reality that all inhabit. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 35 For educators, this is vitally important. For the most part, they have been teaching without a grounded ethical foundation for much of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. If it is the case that the minds of learners are intrinsically good, a position that one must accept if conscious mind helps to create objective reality and complexity, then an ethical foundation for establishing excellent pedagogies can logically be put in place. Mind and the Quantum Mechanical World Importantly, mind is now linked to the very nature of reality (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, 2004; Nagel, 2012; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). Until recently, it had been almost universally held that material reality has an existence independent from humanity. Humans live in space-time and participate with the material constituents of reality, it was claimed, but nothing they do could ever affect the nature of reality (Davies, 2007). The universe existed first, followed by life, and then consciousness appeared, but the most any conscious human could do is manipulate matter on a very small, very local scale. A powerful explosion may have global impact, as it directly affects all life on the planet, but nothing humanity could ever do would shift in any possible way the reality upon which everything is based. Over the last three decades, however, observation of the way the universe actually works has given rise to what earlier would have been an outlandish claim: Mind as an intelligent observer is directly responsible for objective reality. Rather than the material universe existing independently of humanity, the material constituents of reality seem to depend on the observation of conscious mind or minds (Davies, 2004, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Nagel, 2012; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). It seems almost impossible to EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 36 contemplate, but extant evidence indicates that there is no such thing as a mind-independent reality. Involved is the quantum world, the physics of very small, exotic particles and strange, counterintuitive behavior at the most basic level of observable reality. Specifically, experiments during the last three-quarters of a century have shown that the observation of intelligent observers-humans, at this point, certainly qualify as intelligent observers-changes the nature of reality at the quantum level, but this effect also extends into the macro environment humans inhabit. This understanding is due to what is known as the superpositional nature of fundamental particles in the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, the theory stating that particles are in all possible position states when they appear. Particles have no fixed, concrete nature before they are observed, and it seems in some manner they know when they have been observed-possibly the strangest behavior seen in all physics. Upon observation, the superpositional state collapses, and specific, concrete particles appear. Noteworthy is the fact that this effect is also seen larger objects, both atoms and molecules, rather than it remaining only at the level of the subatomic (Barrow & Tippler, 1996; Hardy, 2004; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Zeh, 2004). What qualifies as an intelligent observation and a more detailed explanation of superpositional states will receive more attention below. Nevertheless, encounters with the world-of-the-very-small have forced physicists to rethink the very nature of reality. Importantly, the quantum theory under consideration has become an essential part of twenty-first century life, part of a larger environment, the macro world that humans live in. The micro world is existence on the level of atoms and the subatomic. Human EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 37 experience, on the other hand, takes place in the much larger environment of taxicabs, clouds, and computers: the macro world, in other words. However, neither of these levels of existence is isolated from the other. Subatomic particles form the latticework of energy endemic to all larger objects, but these in turn gain their reality from observation of mind (Davies, 2004; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). The argument here is that quantum theory deals with the very small, but the very small intrudes into the much larger environment of humans and vice versa. In fact, theory found in quantum mechanics has found practical application in nearly one-third of the world's economy. For example, the computer on which most are reading this paper necessarily has circuits in superposition; otherwise, the number of computations and the speed necessary for its regular operations could not be taking place. Lasers, transistors, magnetic resonance imagers-MRIs-and charge-coupled devices also have component parts in superpositional states as part of normal operations (Monroe, 2004; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Zeh 2004). A twenty-first century ubiquitous with electronic devices shows that superposition is interwoven into ordinary human experience. This is no mere academic exercise: The interpretations of reality found in quantum mechanics seem to explain how reality actually works (Hardy, 2004). The two-slit experiment and superposition. Helpful in understanding why the majority of-but not all-physicists (Zurek, 2004) find themselves forced to accept the conclusions of the quantum mechanics is the oft-repeated two-slit experiment. In the laboratory, an emitter is placed so that the light it produces-photons-could go through one of two different openings. Some particles of light impact the areas around the openings, but other light makes it through. On the other side, a detection device such as a EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 38 photographic plate is put in place to record their arrival. Interestingly, impacts on the plate produce an interference pattern consisting of alternating bands of light and darkness, a pattern that could only take place if something is interacting with the photons after going through the slits. The offered explanation is that light has both wave and particle-like properties, and particles of light, at this point acting like waves, tend to cancel or reinforce each other, leading to the interference pattern seen at the very end (Davies, 2007; Hardy, 2004; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Steinburg, 2004). These are the basics of the two-slit experiment. Interference patterns are familiar to any that have watched waves interact on the surface of a body of water, and similar interactions take place in the two-slit experiment. One can watch as waves, when created by more that one source, travel towards and then impact each other. They could impact head on or at various angles, and the interaction causes the waves to either cancel out or reinforce each other. The reinforced ones get stronger, and they continue on, while the cancelled ones dissipate. In like manner, in the two-slit experiment, light comes through the two slits exhibiting wave-like properties, and the photons-acting-like-waves either reinforce or cancel each other, with bands of light and darkness being the result. Note that, at this point, things seem fairly normal, except for the tiny weirdness seen in light having properties of being both a wave and a particle (Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Steinburg, 2004). The conclusion, in the past, was that these are ordinary interactions taking place in one particular kind of matter, and the weirdness was treated as nothing more than an oddity (Rosenblum & Kuttner, EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 39 2011). The results seemed to resonate with the reductive material paradigm the sciences were in the process of formulating. But the normal did not last for very long. What came as a complete surprise, when physicists began to vary the two-slit experiment, was that the interference pattern remains in place no matter how slowly the photons are emitted. Turn the emitter down a little, and the interference pattern remains. Turn it down some more; the interference remains. Even if the emitter is slowed to the point that it emits one photon at a time, the interference pattern still remains. But this is impossible. No interference pattern should appear, for isolated particles of light traveling towards a photographic plate have nothing to interact with. This, clearly, did not fit into the reductive material paradigm. The interpretation offered by quantum mechanics, on the other hand, explains that each photon is a wave in superposition, somehow knows of the two openings it could go through, goes through both slits at the same time, interferes with itself, and creates the interference pattern (Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Steinburg, 2004). Even though the explanation is quite strange, most physicists, including Rosenblum and Kuttner (2011), say they accept the explanation just offered. Quantum mechanics, they and others claim, is the most cogent explanation of how the fundamentals of the material universe operate. Observation and the collapse of the superpositional state. More analysis of superpositional states in quantum mechanics is needed at this point. Take the example used so far: light emitted as part of a two-slit experiment. A particle of light, a photon, exists in all possible position states, as it is emitted from a source. Additionally, as noted above, it acts like a wave at this point, not a defined particle. But what does all possible position states mean? It is this: When it is produced and travels forward, the photon is EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 40 radically undefined, for it exists in a fully plastic, fully undefined state. If it occupied just one location, it would have a single position state; however, its radically undefined nature puts it in all possible position states simultaneously, a superpositional state, in other words. To state this in a slightly different way, its existence is simultaneously all things it could possibly be, as it is emitted (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Wilczek, 2015). The conclusion is that a particle in superposition has no definite character, no definite properties, but it can receive a definite nature under the right conditions. Furthermore, the theory states that a photon at this stage has no objective reality; this, too, needs to be explained. Objectively real things have location and specific properties. A glass vase sitting on a fireplace mantel, for example, has objective reality. It has a definite location and definite characteristics, such as being smooth to the touch, brittle, and transparent. The same is true of a lampshade or the chair upon which the reader is now sitting. A newly emitted photon, however, is not objectively real, as it has neither fixed location nor fixed wavelength or any other definitive property. Properties as fundamental as location in space only exist as probabilities for the particle in superposition; one could only state the statistical probability of it being in a particular location (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Wilczek, 2015; Zeh, 2004). It is weird to state this, but the photon has no true substance, no true essence at this point, so it can only be subjectively real (Zeh, 2004). It is real, but its subjective nature means that it is nothing more than a moving wave of statistical probability, described by Wilczek (2015) as a "probablilty cloud" or "density in a region of space" (p. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 41 394). In fact, a term given to the photon as this stage is wavefunction, a word quite appropriate for a density wrinkle in space-time with statistical probability. Nevertheless, it has the potential of gaining objective reality, and it does so immediately upon observation (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Wilczek, 2015; Zeh, 2004). To state this a bit more directly, it only becomes real in any meaningful sense after the wavefunction collapses. After intelligent observation, it has substance, definite properties, and definite location. In short, the subjectively real photon becomes objectively real when conscious mind observes it, and this is true for all other subatomic particles. What is observation? So what at this point counts as observation? Quantum theory states that it must be an intelligent observation if the superposition is to be collapsed. An essential part of the theory is that information about the collapsed superposition must be available to the observer; otherwise, it will not take place. In other words, one photon cannot observe another in superposition and cause the collapse to take place, for information about particle interactions is complex. A photon has no higher-order cognitive capacity, so it could not have knowledge about superpositional states. The comprehension manifested by a higher order of consciousness could, on the other hand, process the information; therefore, it could be a true observer (Davies, 2004; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Wilczek, 2015). Davies (2007) describes how information availability during the two-slit experiment determines whether or not the superposition collapses: The "interference pattern will emerge only if the experimenter makes no effort to determine which slit any give photon went through" (p. 245). In other words, information gained by mind about fundamental particles forces EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 42 them out of their superpositional states. Humans, of course, are consciously aware, intelligent observers, so humans can cause superpositional wavefunction to collapse. In fact, the reader is causing the collapse of superpositional states right now. Light from either a computer or reflected from a printed page is observed when it strikes the rods and cones at the backs of the reader's retinas. It ceases its insubstantial existence at that point and takes on specific properties, but it is also the case that the energy of the photons is absorbed as part of the process. Nevertheless, the light becomes fully real, objectively real at the moment it is observed. But quantum theory states that unless consciousness were involved in the observation, no collapse would take place. Mind, it seems, is at the core of this, for it is a conscious entity that ultimately makes sense of the data streaming into its conscious sphere. It causes the collapse of superpositional states (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Wilczek, 2015; Zeh, 2004). This, again, is very strange and counterintuitive. But it is also the position that most physicists have found themselves forced into. The reader is taking the potential and making it actual. There is no substitute for mind in intelligent observation. What about observation by a machine? Could a data recorder or observational device of some kind cause wavefunction collapse? The answer can be found in a modified two-slit experiment. Suppose that a device that polarizes light is placed at a strategic point, such as right before one of the two-slit openings. The polarizing process sorts light that goes through, and this causes the results of the experiment to change. A photon, after going through the polarizer, now only goes through one of the two slits, confirming that it has become a concrete, objectively real particle in a single-position state. Therefore, it seems EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 43 that intelligent observation is not restricted to mind, for detectors such as polarizers are not self-aware (Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Wilczek, 2015). But this is quantum mechanics, so one should expect the counterintuitive to be true. Apparently, mind and only mind causes the collapse of superpositional states. In fact, put another device between the polarizer and the two slits that obscures information about the polarized light, and the results again change. In this case, the experiment is modified again, as a device is put in place to obscure any information that could be gained: No knowledge of its status is now possible. Otherwise, the device does not alter particles in any fashion. Importantly, the single purpose of the information-obscuring devise is to prevent any and all information from reaching the experimenter, for the simple act of putting light through a polarizer gives the experimenter some information about its status (Davies, 2004, 2007; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). Two results are possible now, and the outcome will indicate the identity of the intelligent observer. If the polarizer is the intelligent observer then the superposition will remain collapsed, for it will be the observer that has given concrete reality to the particles. If, however, the superposition remains in place then the mind of the experimenter is the intelligent observer. What, then, is the result of the modified experiment? Consistent with the interpretations of quantum mechanics, the superposition remains in place (Davies, 2004, 2007; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). The wavefunction did not collapse, it is argued, as no actual knowledge was given to the experimenter. Mind is the intelligent observer, and its conscious awareness allows this. The results from the laboratory are clear: Interactions with polarizers or any other detection device do not cause the collapse of wavefunctions. Since the only other EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 44 candidate for intelligent observation in the experiments is the person or persons conducting it, the forced conclusion is that mind causes the collapse. Note as well, that it seems necessary for consciousness to be in place, for an unconscious entity cannot perform the necessary knowledge-gaining observation. Even though it seems entirely counterintuitive, knowledge created as part of the observation of conscious mind causes wavefunction to collapse. Mind creates reality. Consciousness and objective reality. As one might imagine, the observational effect heretofore described has enormous implications both for the nature of reality and the role of humans. Since the entire visible material universe is made up of these exotic fundamental particles, and since all started out in superposition, without intelligent observation, the entire visible universe would be nothing more than a superpositional wavefunction, nothing more than a moving wave of statistical probability (Lanza & Berman, 2009; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011; Wilczek, 2015). Those working their way through this paper participate in taking the potential and making it actual, and they do so merely by reading. Of course, the brain and mind are furiously working behind the scenes to make the reading process possible, but it is true, nevertheless, that the act of reading creates reality. And the rest of mankind unknowingly shares in this reality-making endeavor. Of course, ubiquitous mind has again surfaced, for not only does evidence suggest that mind is separate in some manner from brain states-as was argued in chapter one-but also that the conscious observation of mind is fundamental to the existence of all that is known. The developing theory of this paper is that material mind or minds are conscious entities that exist in a fundamental manner apart from the physical processes of EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 45 the body and brain, and it/they are largely responsible for the reality now being experienced by all humanity. In addition, and quite weirdly, the observations taking place at this very instant fixes the nature of particles in the past, no matter how long or far they have traveled. Indeed, experimentation shows that the fixed nature particles gain upon observation translates into the past, as if they always had this fixed nature. This happens instantaneously, faster than the speed of light (Davies, 2004, 2007; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011), even though nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This, again, is shown experimentally. If the history of a particle observed at the end of an experiment is traced back through the scientific instruments it just traveled, it can be shown to have traveled only one path, even though it will have been in superposition before the actual observation took place. And if additional experimental parameters are set in place, it has been shown in laboratories that one half of an entangled twin-particle (Davis, 2004; Monroe, 2004) will know that the other half will be observed in the future. Instantaneously, it will drop out of superposition. Strangely, both current and future knowledge changes the past and creates objective reality (Davies, 2004; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). Upon observation, particles and larger objects instantaneously gain a concrete, objective history, as if they always had a fixed nature, and this is caused by mind. Contemplate this as well: Human observations instantaneously translate into all regions of space-time that are observable from the Earth. Light and other forms of energy continuously arrive at the Earth from all reaches of the observable universe, including particles in transit for as many as 13.7 billion years. Since observation of superpositional EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 46 states causes a shift to objective reality, the reality-making effects of human observation extend into the far reaches of the universe. At this very moment, a sustained look by the reader at the sky takes in photons from the nether reaches of the universe, and this otherwise innocuous act causes them to become fixed, objectively real. However, this affects not just the state of reality now but billions of years into the past, for observation and collapse of wavefunction instantaneously translates into the past. Therefore, it is not just local space-time that is affected, for observed particles reach the Earth from virtually all locales of the observable universe and from virtually all past times. They become concrete in the past, no matter the location they originated from or the time when they were created (Davies, 2004, 2007; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). Humanity gives objective reality to localized space-time now, and it gives objective reality to the entire visible universe in the past. Any and all humans participate in this reality-making endeavor. All humans admiring cloud formations or the stars in the night sky makes the visible universe objectively real; all conscious humans observe, so all create an objective reality. It is the mysterious minds of humans that cause wavefunction to collapse and an objective, fixed reality to appear, and this takes place on both a quantum and universal scale. Note, in addition, that the argument just made makes individual conscious minds universal participatory causal agents (Davies, 2007; Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011), for one can see cause and effect operations taking place, as intelligent observation takes place, and particles take on a concrete nature. In other words, humanity is a causal factor in creating reality throughout the entire universe. These thoughts are nothing short of astonishing, but they are true if one finds oneself accepting the interpretations of quantum mechanics. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 47 Upon reading these arguments, educators, of course, will immediately reach the conclusion that both they and their learners are vitally important. Both are participatory causal agents, and no objective reality would exist without them and others like them (Davies, 2004). The very minds educators seek to educate participate in the creation of reality, and consciousness is vital to this observational, participatory process. More on how this affects ethical considerations in teaching, as well as one counterargument to the claims of quantum mechanics, will be entertained at the end of the chapter. The question to be raised now is if mind holds any other surprises for educators and others. The answer seems to lie in the stunning complexity seen in the universe. Complexity and the Reductive Material Paradigm The question that must now be asked by educators, who need to better understand the learners they interact with, is this: Is there anything else seen wherein conscious mind acts as a causal agent? The answer appears to be an emphatic yes. Not only does mysterious mind appear to be fundamental to the existence of objective reality, but mind also appears to be a participatory causal agent in the highly complex, multifaceted environment humans find themselves in (Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Linde, 2004; Nagel, 2012). The human environment, ranging all the way from the fine-tuning of the fundamental forces in the first moments of the universe following the big bang to the intricacies of cellular operations seen in biological life, seems to require a causal agent or agents to explain the staggering complexities. The argument is this: If the universe and all in it operate according to regular mechanisms that can easily be explained-the reductive material paradigm, in other words-then no extraneous causal agent or agents are needed. On the other hand, if the EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 48 complexities are inordinately intricate then it seems that one is compelled to posit the existence of a causal agent or agents. Mind or minds, of course, must at this point be accepted as participatory causal agent or agents, if the interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, so one has a ready-made candidate or candidates for complexity. Is this the actual state of affairs, however? Is the human environment this radically complex? The amounts and kinds of complexity found in the multifaceted human environment are nothing short of astonishing. One finds complexity in the fine-tuned forces of the universe, in the environment of the Earth, and in biological life (Davies, 2007; Ellis, 2004; Gribbin, 2011; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Nagel, 2012; Ward & Brownlee, 2000). Science, of course, seeks to explain the complex, and it automatically seeks a material explanation for it, assuming that the reductive material paradigm is used. However, appearing in addition to the complexity are highly unlikely or what-seems-to-be impossible scenarios that take place in the human environment, and these have created additional problems for the reductive material paradigm (Davies, 2007; Gribbin, 2011; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Nagel, 2012; Ward & Brownlee, 2000). The difficulties and problems that have appeared have led some of the most prominent scholars, including significant numbers in the hard sciences, to argue for or at least seriously consider that mind is needed to explain the complexity (Davies, 2004, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, 2004; Nagel, 2012). Note, again, that this was a reluctant move for scholars, but at the same time, it is incongruous EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 49 scientific evidence that continues to encourage a revision of the reductive material paradigm. Complexity in the universe. First to be considered is the inordinately complex interactions of the fine-tuned forces of the universe. Beginning a little more than thirty years ago, physicists and cosmologists began to see that the fundamental forces found in the universe, the cosmological constants, are precisely fixed, with very little allowable variation. Being fine-tuned means the forces are deeply intertwined, so that the values of one must be precisely defined if another is to have its own precisely defined value (Davies, 2007; Davis, 1982; Gingerich, 2000; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, 2004; Smolin, 2007). One can compare a well-tuned car engine, with each piston set to fire in regular order. If one piston were to begin to vary in its firing then the rest would be thrown out of alignment as well, and the engine eventually would cease operation. The same is true of the fine-tuned nature of the universe. If the fine-tuning were not precisely put in place then the bio-friendly universe-one favorable to life (Barrow & Tippler, 1996)-humans find themselves in would not be possible. Here are some examples, but many more could be cited:  Penrose (1989) points out that the likelihood of the universe at the moment of the big bang having the low level of entropy needed to make energy usable in the universe is staggeringly small: 1/1010123. The odds of placing a nickel on one side of the universe and hitting it in the exact center with a bullet fired from the other side are vastly greater than this.  Davis (1982) has shown that if the constants of gravity, electromagnetism, and electron mass relative to proton mass were not fine-tuned to an allowable variance EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 50 of 10−39 then stars like the sun-a yellow, G2, medium-sized, main sequence star-would not be possible. "If gravity were only very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, or the electron mass slightly smaller" (p. 73), he writes, then all stars would be red dwarfs. A tiny change the other direction would only yield blue giants.  Gingerich (2000) explains that carbon has a precise resonance that just happens to coincide with the resonances found in an oxygen atom as well as a beryllium atom colliding with a helium nucleus. Bonding properties that appear, due to the resonance similarity, are essential to life. Few carbon atoms would appear were the combined resonances of the beryllium atom and helium nucleus not to match that of carbon. Furthermore, if the resonance level of carbon were only four percent lower then almost no carbon would appear. If the resonance level of oxygen were only a half percent higher then virtually all carbon would have been converted into oxygen long ago. The fine-tunedness of the universe came as a shock, for the inordinate level of complexity seen in the universe seems to defy the reductive material paradigm that virtually all had accepted. For the paradigm to make sense, all things need to happen in a fully mechanistic way; all events are no more than accidental outcomes of fixed forces. However, fine-tuning defies the accepted understanding of the paradigm, particularly in that the universe seems to be fine-tuned to bring forth life, also known as bio-friendliness (Davies, 2007; Davis, 1982; Gingerich, 2000; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, 2004; Penrose, 1989). If one accepts the reductive material paradigm, it must be the case that the physical universe happened accidently, mechanistically: no EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 51 purpose, no design, no causal agent or agents (Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013). But stunning complexity tends to undermine the reductive material paradigm. It should have been the case that the material constituents of reality provide their own explanation. Oxygen, for example, could only have characteristics that it would inevitably have, and these would be understood by appealing to the fundamental forces that produced them. Indeed, the goal of physics in the twentieth century was to find the single grand equation that would explain everything, the so-called grand unified theory (Barrow & Tippler, 1996; Gribbin & White, 2016; Smolin, 2007, Weinburg, 1992). This would be a very long equation, with numbers and symbols that only a graduate student in physics could read or understand. In fact, if one were to attempt to write it on a chalkboard or whiteboard, one likely would need dozens of boards, or more, to accomplish the task. Written in the complex equation would be symbols that explained why oxygen had to take the values it does, as well as an explanation of everything else. The grand theory of everything that was a goal of the reductive material paradigm (Davies, 2004) should have explained everything in fully material, naturalistic terms. But what astrophysicists and cosmologists found was counterintuitive, fully opposite of what they had expected to find. The underlying nature of the universe is vastly complicated, with more than 30 cosmological constants deeply intertwined with each other and set at very precise values (Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Smolin, 2007). There is no apparent reason why the constants must have these values, unless, of course, one suggests that they are set that way to bring forth biological life (Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 52 2004). Clearly, the universe is bio-friendly, but it is blatantly so: It seems to be designed to bring forth life. But this would demand consciousness mind, it seems, for one cannot get such precisely tuned values wholly by accident. Additionally, these fine-tuned forces have retained these precisely defined values for virtually the entire history of the universe (Davies, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009), and no reductive material explanation as to why this is the case is forthcoming. Complexity may be counterintuitive, but is also true. Regardless of what created the conditions that led to the bio-friendly universe humans inhabit, the statistically impossible complexity found in the fine-tuned forces of the universe cannot be ignored. Conscious mind, at least at this point, is an attractive alternative, for it seems that the reductive material paradigm cannot explain how the complexity could have been arrived at by accident. Note, however, several theories regarding multiple realities attempt to do just this, explain how complexity can accidentally appear, and these will be discussed in the final section of this chapter. Complexity in Earth's environment. Another consideration in complexity is the multifaceted environment of the Earth. At the turn of the century, Ward and Brownlee (2000) proposed the rare Earth theory. It argues that the chance of Earth-like worlds in the universe is rare, and intelligent life even more rare, for a series of highly unlikely occurrences must take place in order for it to appear. They suggested that the combination of unlikely events means that it is possible that humanity is the single intelligent species that the universe will ever have. Since that time, the number of needed, unlikely circumstances to bring forth an Earth-like world has increased, with over 200 conditions now thought to be necessary for intelligent life to appear. The general conclusion today is that Earth and the humanity it has brought forth is completely a EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 53 statistical impossibility (Davies, 2007; Gribbin, 2011; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Waltham, 2014). In other words, statistically, no Earth and no human should exist. The unlikely chance of some of these necessary conditions happening further emphasizes problems with the reductive material paradigm. Indeed, Gribbin (2011), mainly focusing on the statistically impossible bio-friendly environment created by the formation of the Earth-Moon system and statistically impossible, chance occurrences in biological evolution, argues that humans definitively are alone in the universe. He argues this, as the minimal conditions needed for life to appear cannot be reasonably replicated, even in the vast universe. However, to be clear, this is not an argument that only one Earth-like planet would naturally appear, but that conditions are so unlikely that, statistically, not even the Earth should have appeared. Of course, if the Earth had not appeared then it is likely that no life would have appeared, and if no life appeared then no conscious humans would have appeared. This, of course, causes additional problems for the reductive material paradigm, as an examination of the environmental conditions of the universe does not explain how life and humans arose. But if material conscious mind is consciously putting in place circumstances that lead to life and humans-both in the fine-tuned forces of the universe and the environmental conditions found therein-then the statistical impossibility goes away. Here is a description of some environmental features necessary for an Earth-like world to appear. The planet could only appear in a sparsely stellar-populated universal backwater like the Earth's local group of galaxies, insuring that no major galactic EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 54 collisions could cause chaotic perturbation or destruction of the narrow galactic habitable zone found in galaxies like the Milky Way. The galaxy the planet appears in must be massive, barred, and spiral-armed, as only this type of galaxy allows for a habitable zone with very little perturbation and a sufficient amount of life-dependent metals. The star the planet orbits must be an unusually stable, solitary, third-generation, G2, medium-sized, main-sequence star of a very specific size-effectively the same size as the sun when thermonuclear reactions first began-for only a star like this will consistently deliver the precise amounts of continually increasing energy at precisely the right time. A massive comet sweeper like Jupiter must be in just the right location, close enough to clear the inner solar system of extinction-impact objects but not close enough to significantly perturb the hypothetical Earth's nearly circular orbit. Then, what seems to be impossible must happen: A significant amount of life-giving water must somehow be redelivered to the planet's orbit (Davies, 2007; Gribbin, 2011; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Waltham, 2014; Ward & Brownlee, 2000). Note that the description so far only involves the general environment in which the Earth is found. Note also that a significant number of galaxies and most star systems in the universe have already been disqualified from harboring an Earth. Note, in addition, to bring the argument up to the present time, that no similar solar system or even-close-to-Earth-like world has been found in wide-ranging searches for exoplanets-planets outside of the solar system-now taking place in astronomy. More than a thousand star systems with planets have been found, in preliminary searches for other Earth-like worlds (Gribbin, 2011; Marcy, 2010; Young, 2015). But the results to this point show exactly what the statistics of the rare Earth theory would predict. So far, Earth and its solar EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 55 system are unique (Davies, 2007; Gribbin, 2011; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Waltham, 2014; Ward & Brownlee, 2000). Indeed, they seem an aberration, a complete deviation from the norm. The most unlikely event regarding the immediate environment of a star system in which an Earth-like world could appear is a very early planetary collision. The collision would need to take place very soon after the system is established, involve a planet smaller than the Earth with just the right amount of mass-similar to present-day Mars-and a proto-Earth, also somewhat smaller than Earth, of just the right amount of mass. A favorable collision like this must be at just the right speed, estimated to be about 25,000 miles per hour, at an oblique angle, at just the right spot on the proto-Earth, and the impacted proto-Earth must have a very precise rotational rate before the collision takes place. It must include a quick-succession secondary impact, allow for the merging of two planetary iron cores, and create an orbiting debris field that quickly coalesces into the Moon. The collision, additionally, must eject the right amount of material so that only a relatively thin crust will develop on the newly formed Earth, and it must leave in place a very precise rotational rate, approximately a five-hour day (Davies, 2007; Gribbin, 2011; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Waltham, 2014; Ward & Brownlee, 2000). With these additional parameters, the chance of Earth appearing drops dramatically. It likely is a statistical impossibility already. But Waltham (2014) adds that both the final size of the Earth and Moon as well as the Earth's rotation after the impact and gradual slowing due to tidal friction afterward must be extraordinarily precise. He states that if the Moon's radius had been "just ten kilometers bigger and the early Earth's day just ten minutes longer, Earth's axis would be EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 56 about to become unstable today" (p. 174). He further argues that an increase in the "average tidal drag by just a few percent and the same thing happens; modern Earth would be an unstable world that could not sustain us" (p. 174). In other words, if the conditions of the early Earth had varied only slightly from what actually appeared, the present-day, life-filled planet would not be possible. Waltham (2014) argues that the present-day environment of the Earth, created by the Earth-Moon system, is unusually fine-tuned: It "sits in a sweet spot between the life-destroying fates of frequent, severe glaciation or climatic chaos" (p. 176). Additionally, as noted by Ward and Brownlee (2003), the current climate of present-day Earth is unusually warm and stable and unusually long in duration, significantly unlike all warm episodes found between glacial periods seen in the past. This climatic stability and warmth will have led to the rapid rise of human civilization. When the more than 200 parameters are examined, it must be concluded that a statistical impossibility has somehow taken place. An extensive list of necessary requirements, including unexplained anomalies in biology, could continue. One example in biology is the enigmatic Cambrian explosion. Fossil records indicate that the rate of speciation-the rise of new species-during this time period is some value approaching 100 times the rate demanded by neo-Darwinian theory, with most of the speciation impossibly taking place in a five to six million year period. In other words, an impossible proliferation of highly complex, hard-bodied life suddenly appears (Gould, 1990: Morris, 1999). Neo-Darwinian theory demands that the rate of DNA mutation must be slow and steady (Godfrey-Smith, 2014), yet slow and steady is the last description one would give to the Cambrian explosion (Nagel, 2012; Ward & Brownlee, 2000). Noteworthy, as well, is that this rapid development of life led EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 57 to a significantly earlier appearance of humanity than would have been expected. The conclusion of this argument is that the reductive material paradigm is insufficient to the task of explaining the complex environment of the Earth and the life that inhabits it. It seems that, like the highly complex nature of the fine-tuned forces of the universe, the multifaceted environment of the Earth is inexplicably bio-friendly. It seems that it cannot appear by accident. Conscious mind, again, is the likely causal agent. Conclusions of Complexity The conclusion from arguments made thus far is that mind seems to be an integral part of reality, a participatory causal agent or agents that help to create the multifaceted reality of the universe. If one holds that material mind exists in some manner exterior to or added upon the functional processes of the brain, and if consciousness is given to mind, then it can act as a causal agent. If the complexity were on a much smaller scale, or if it only involved a single area related to human existence, then the need would be diminished. But the complexity is wide-ranging and, in fact, completely off any normal scale of measurement. One must take into account the statistically impossible fine-tuned nature of the universe, the extraordinary circumstances needed for the Earth to appear, and the statistically impossible odds of life appearing, becoming complex, and finally leading to humans and consciousness. To say that this is a statistical impossibility is an understatement (Barrow & Tippler, 1996). This has, effectively, led significant numbers of cosmologists, astrophysicists, quantum physicists, others in academia to argue that mind is a participatory causal agent (Davies, 2004, 2007; Lanza & Berman, 2009; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013; Linde, 2004; Nagel, 2012). EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 58 Wheeler (Davies, 2004), Davies (2007), Lanza (2009), and Linde (2004) all support a bio-friendly participatory worldview, one that argues that mind, the substructure of reality, and life each participate with the other. Davies (2007), one of the most renowned astrophysicists and cosmologists of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, is a good voice for this worldview. He specifically argues that "a much deeper connection between life, mind, and cosmos" exists (p. 231); "life, mind, and physical law are part of a common scheme, mutually supporting . . . the biofriendliness of the universe is an observer selection effect" (p. 231). To support the participatory argument, Linde (2004) asks this rhetorical question: "Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness are inseparably linked? (p. 451). In other words, Wheeler, Davies, Lanza, and Linde look at the observer effect seen in quantum mechanics and the complexities found in the remarkably fine-tuned universe, the appearance of the Earth, and biology, and they say that the complexity is not accidental. Nagel (2012), too, argues that material mind is a causal agent, but he does not believe that it must be consciously aware until it appears in biological life. Even though no complete scholarly consensus has been reached for this developing worldview, the best explanation Wheeler, Davies, Lanza, and Linde find for complexity is that mind helped to arranged it. Conscious material mind helped to create the reality that all experience, and it has a biological home in that which it arranged. Noteworthy here is the fact that a true revolution in thought is taking place. It is, what one might call the counter-Copernican revolution or the beginning of the noetic era-the end of the postmodern era and the start of the philosophical era of mind. Humanity is being taken from meaninglessness and mediocrity and placed again at the EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 59 center of reality, this due to the newfound status of mind. Copernicus moved humanity from the center of the universe when he suggested that the Sun, not Earth, was at its center, and twentieth-century science fully reinforced this view. The twentieth century, in fact, effectively reduced humanity to the status of inconsequential thinking meat, cementing in place the principle of mediocrity, also known as the Copernican principle. This is the twentieth-century notion that humans are in no way important in the universal scheme of things (Barrow & Tippler, 1996; Davies, 2007). The reductive material paradigm, birthed in the harsh light of the Copernican principle, explained that all that happens in the universe is a remarkable accident, no more. Mankind, too, is an accident, the paradigm explained, so humanity became mediocre. It does not seem, however, that the Copernican principle can be supported anymore. Humanity is important, essential even, if anything is to exist and, it seems, if biological life is to appear. Alternate views on complexity. But to be even handed at this point, several alternatives to mind as a causal agent or generally accepted quantum theory have recently appeared, the two most plausible being the worlds hypothesis and the multiverse (Barrow & Tipler, 1996; Davies, 2007; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013). The first argues that any event that will ever take place in the universe that could have happened otherwise, including on the quantum level, instantaneously spawns an entirely new, virtually identical universe. The second claims that humanity's universe is but one part of a much larger structure: a multiverse that regularly creates new bubble universes (Davies, 2007; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013). Both theories argue that rapid universe creation will never cease, leading to an infinite number and variety of universes. Note that the strategy of both is not to deny the complexity that has appeared, for it would be foolish to deny the blatantly obvious, but EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 60 show that it could still take place accidentally. If one increases the number of chances in which the statistically impossible could happen to infinity then the statistically impossible disappears. In other words, it must happen, for the chances of it happening are increased to infinity. Complexity and intelligent life would inevitably appear, but it still would be accidental within each universe it appears. The reductive material paradigm, as a result, finds needed support in the two proposed alternatives. Additionally, the many-worlds hypothesis is accepted in lieu of the interpretations found in quantum mechanics. Rather than accepting the weirdness of superpositional states collapsing merely by the observation of humans, the theory claims that all events in which superposition could collapse actually should be seen as a mechanistic outcome. Vast numbers of new universes are spawned each and every time variable events take place. Humans, therefore, are not participatory causal agents. Again, the reductive material paradigm is supported. As one might imagine, both the many-worlds hypothesis and multiverse theory are not without problems. Significantly, no evidence for either theory has been or could ever be found, for humans can only observe their own universe. The theories are, therefore, forever safe from either corroboration or repudiation. But this means that both step away from the scientific method and directly into the speculation of philosophy, for the scientific method demands testability and verification. The many-worlds hypothesis has the additional problem of seeming to deny consciousness and free will, as all events are mechanistically determined. What seems to be choice is, in actuality, nothing more than forced outcomes of mechanistic events. Turning to the second theory, note that the multiverse does not actually offer any explanation of complexity, as it merely shifts EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 61 causation up a level, to a much more complex, vastly larger structure (Davies, 2007; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013). Defenders, therefore, still find themselves still attempting to explain complexity, but now their attention is shifted to an even-more-difficult-to-explain complexity of a multiverse that is speculation in the first place. It seems that both theories have severe problems. Most intriguing, however, is what seems to be a fatal paradoxical twist: If all universes must inevitably appear in infinite variety-and both theories argue forcefully for this-then material conscious mind as a participatory causal agent will inevitably appear in at least some, if not many, universes. In other words, if all universes will inevitably appear, then universes with material conscious mind or minds would necessarily come into existence as well. But complexity initiated by a causal agent or agents is the very thing both theories argue against (Davies, 2007). The result is that both seem to fail, for they both support the very conclusion they were intended to undermine in the first place. Ominously, they are the best of the alternative explanations for complexity and the observer effect in quantum mechanics that have been forwarded. A new ethical foundation for education. One might question why the previous arguments of this chapter were needed. But it is likely that educators reading this already understand the implications. The learner an educator works with is so much more than would have been thought just a few decades ago. The twentieth century effectively reduced humanity to the status of inconsequential thinking meat, due to the Copernican principle. Academia widely embraced the mediocrity inherent in this worldview, declaring that humanity is nothing more than the accidental outcome of chance happenings in the universe (Davies, 2007; Leslie & Kuhn, 2013), an accidental EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 62 collocation of atoms destined for oblivion (Russell, 1903). The ethic that appeared due to the reductive material paradigm, ethical relativism, when it is pared down to the bare essentials, declares that there is no significant difference between a human and a cockroach. Both are evolutionary accidents; both are temporary; both add no lasting value to the universe (Pojman, 1995). Nothing any human does, in the end, is meaningful in any significant way. Humans, therefore, have no objective value. One of the implications of the observation effect in quantum mechanics and wide-ranging complexity, if they are accepted, is that humanity must be seen in a new light. Rather than the twenty-first century confirming that humans are ordinary or accidental or unimportant, it is seen that they create objective reality and complexity on a cosmic and local scale. Human mind, the substructure of reality, and life seem to be directly interlinked, each playing a participatory role in the creation of the environment of humans. Furthermore, if the rare Earth hypothesis is accepted, then humans are the only intelligent observers that could ever exist in the universe-unless, of course, mind or minds arrange otherwise. It turns out that humans are anything but mediocre. Human existence is, as a result, extraordinary and anticipated and important. Unless humans are important on a cosmic scale, as has been argued, then they are extrinsically good only. This needs to be explained. Extrinsically good things are things that are good for some reason, instrumental goods, but not good in and of themselves (Pojman, 1995; Zimmerman, 2015). Money is good if and only if it creates a good outcome, like paying rent for an apartment. Rain is good if it waters crops. But money could be used to support a corrupt government, and too much water could create flooding. Both are examples of instrumental, subjective, or extrinsic goods. They are EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 63 good if and only if they are good for something. The mediocrity principle treats humans as little more than cogs in a machine, meaning that they, too, have subjective value only. Persons in the tire factory, therefore, have worth only inasmuch as they produce good tires. Humans are extrinsically good only, in other words. Things are quite different, on the other hand, if one considers the role of human consciousness in the universe. Conscious humans have objective value, in the first place, as each individual's consciousness is necessary to create any meaning at all (Pojman, 1995; Seagar, 2001; Siewert, 1998; Zimmerman, 2015). Consider, for example, that the most fantastically beautiful sunset is effectively meaningless, unless a conscious, cogitating human being is present to appreciate it. Even more important, however, is the claim that human consciousness creates objective reality and helped to bring about complexity and life. If this is accepted then humans are objectively good, intrinsically good, good in and of themselves. Humans in the tire factory are intrinsically good, deeply important in and of themselves. Indeed, the conscious mind that finds manifestation in humanity may be the only objectively good thing in reality, for all other goods seem to be extrinsic (Pojman, 1995; Seagar, 2001; Zimmerman, 2015). Consider that anything of worth or value on any level in the entire universe is in place only due to the observation by mind. Nothing would exist but a wave of probability, otherwise. Humans are not merely good for something, for effectively nothing would exist without them. They are good in and of themselves, intrinsically good; they have objective value. If it is the case that humans have objective value then it is imperative that they be treated with the highest ethical standards. Of course, most educators immediately hold that learners are important on the basis of their humanity. They will have attempted to EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 64 find the best teaching methods and create the right teaching environment, as a result. At the same time, if one accepts the mediocrity principle-and most, particularly in academia, still have this belief lurking about in their worldviews-then there is no grounded basis for the claim that humans ought to be treated with high ethical standards. The utilitarian ethicist Singer (1993), in fact, argues that a newborn child has no more importance than a beloved animal. He argues that since animals have a level of sentience they should be elevated to the same status as humans. This means that in exiting a burning building one could ethically defend rescuing a well-behaved cat and not a newborn child. Singer (1993) holds that humans have no objective value, and his belief is ultimately based on human mediocrity inherent in both the reductive material paradigm and the Copernican principle. Even Pojman (1995), who dislikes ethical relativism, admits that he cannot find a robust objective basis for human morality. Keep in mind that holding a belief without logical foundation is tantamount to having an unexamined bias. Therefore, if educators want a defendable reason why they should rescue students and not beloved class pets from burning buildings then it is imperative that an entirely new foundation for ethics be put in place. If it can be shown that humans have objective value, as is evidently the case in the argument seen above, then educators have a basis for the ethical treatment of learners. The result is clear. The learner the educator will face later today or tomorrow or next week or some future time is deserving of the best possible education that can reasonably be created. Most educators already sacrifice a great deal for their learners, but the sacrifice is now given an objective basis. One can give good reasons why educators ought to strive for excellence. Quite significantly, it can also be pointed out that learners, EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 65 too, have a new foundation for why they should seek excellence in their own learning. They are intrinsically good, good in and of themselves, vastly important in the cosmic scheme of things, so they should seek the excellence found in education. Hopefully, the implications of conscious mind and reality have become clear to the reader. It seems that everything needs to be rethought. And although the conclusions concerning mind one may reach in the twenty-first century seem almost too good to be true, there does not seem to be compelling alternatives in place, meaning that they have a good chance of being true. Educators, at this point, might want to ask a final question: What implications does conscious material mind hold for best methods in teaching? The final chapter will offer several perspectives on this. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 66 Chapter III Educating Material Conscious Mind: A Preliminary Theory Introduction Up to this point, the focus of the paper has been a reexamination of mind. It seems that one is forced to do so, for it is not the materially reducible phenomenon it was once thought to be. And compelling argument is found that would have it participating in both the foundation of objective reality and the surprising complexity found in the cosmos. As has been argued, if the previous suppositions are true then conscious mind is an intrinsic good, and humans that have consciousness at their core have intrinsic worth. And one can ethically ground one's reasons why best practices ought to be implemented, for the mind of the learner is intrinsically good in and of itself. The burgeoning questions that appear now for educators are these: ‘What theory of education appears with a new understanding of mind?'; ‘Does conscious mind have practical application in the teaching process?' The answer to these questions seems to be yes. The processing of data and storage of the information done by functional systems within the brain constitutes learning, but the effectiveness of the process depends upon the attention of mind gained through phenomenal feels (Zull, 2011). This, along with more that has been learned about the cognitive processes of the brain, can be used to explain best practices in teaching. In other words, one can ground one's theory of education in the mind and brain, explaining why best practices work. What follows, then, is a preliminary discussion of conscious mind and education, what should be considered in the light of twenty-first century theories regarding mind and reality. EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 67 This chapter will discuss several processes critical to learning in higher-order cognition and how the natural propensities of the mind and brain allow for the most effective education. First to be discussed is how the functional systems of the brain create objects of knowledge accessible to mind. Functional processes under discussion include the following: creation of open-ended or fuzzy categories of learning (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999); initial categorization due to gestalt processing of raw data (Finkel, & Sajda, 1994; Levi, Sharma, & Klein, 1997; Quinn, Bhatt, Brush, Grimes, & Sharpnack, 2002); storage in long-term memory (Zull, 2011); category retrieval through higher-order functions; and symbolic transmission of information, including language in sentence tokens, through cognitive modules (Cain, 2016; Cummings, 1991; Fodor, 1983; Heil, 2013). In essence, the brain takes raw data and makes it something understood by and useful to mind. The chapter will then focus on how educators can use these processes to their advantage in an attempt to create critical-thinking skills (Zazkis, 1995), and it will end by discussing how the nature of mind can help explain subjective learning. A preliminary theory of educating mind, gradually appearing as this chapter progresses, emphasizes that the functional systems of the brain create categories of understanding for contemplation by mind. Functional Processing and Categorical Understanding It makes sense that the functional systems of the brain do not merely deliver raw data to mind. Indeed, as has been discussed, consciousness is unaware of the innumerable mental operations taking place in the brain at any given moment. But this is a good thing, for the result, if mind were actually aware of them, would likely be an overwhelming cacophony of mental noise. Instead, information is transmitted, transformed, and nicely EDUCATION AND MIND: A NEW LOOK 68 compartmentalized into mental packages, with only a few garnering the direct attention of mind at any given time. The final product, as it is delivered, is information in a form recognizable to mind. What mind actually experiences are unending streams of representational data about the world exterior to mind along with raw phenomenal feels (Casson, 1983). The data, as analyzed and recorded, becomes the basis for all learning. This functional learning process is easily seen in normal human cognition, such as what takes place as one attempts to cross a stream. One comes upon a stream in the forest and decides to cross. In this case, sensory data is streamed to areas of the brain, including data obtained from the firing of cones and rods at the back of retinas and processed in the occipital lobe, giving rise to the visual phenomena of forest and stream in the mind. Recalled memory is almost immediately accessible to the conscious mind at this point. The mind recalls that successful stream crossings have been made in the past by stepping on rocks rising above the surface of the water; this is best described as accessing a mental package identified as the categ