Thomas Neigel's "Panpsychism" as a Basis for a "Brain-Based Learning" Approach

پژوهش نامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت

Article 4, Volume 11, Issue 1 - Serial Number 21, August 2021, Pages 67-85   

Document Type: مروری

DOI: 10.22067/fedu.2021.68378.1017

Authors

Fereidoun Shakibania¹; Parvaneh Valavi^{* 2}; Masoud Safaiimoghadam³; Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast⁴

¹PhD Student of Philosophy of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

²Associate Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

³Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

⁴Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In this study, Thomas Nigel's view of Panpsychism is examined to determine whether this approach is a more appropriate basis for the neuroeducation approach than the physicalist approaches. For this purpose, descriptive-analytical research method has been used. The physical basis of the Neuroeducation approach, instead of solving the problem of the relationship between mind and body and also explaining mental states, by adopting eliminatory and reductionist views and eliminating the problem without considering the phenomenal and first-person characteristics of the mind (by eliminating or reducing the apparent consciousness to events and brain processes) looks at mental states from an objective and third person perspective. Nigel considers the external/objective conception of the world incomplete and presupposes "Panpsychism" in order to fill the explanatory gap of mind and body, and to explain the origin of consciousness and intellect. Nigel's Panpsychism approach, compared to the physicalist approaches, is more appropriate for the general field of education, and especially for the special field of teaching-learning in terms of paying attention to the totality of human existence and the intertwined nature of mentality and objectivity. However, since Nigel's Panpsychism has not adequately explained the problem of composition, it can not be a flawless solution in explaining mental causation and consciousness. As a result, the relationship between mind and body still remains a problem to solve.

Keywords

Neuroeducation; Physicalism; Thomas Nigel; Panpsychism

References

Alter, T., & Nagasawa, Y. (Eds.) (2012). What is russellian monism? (consciousness in the physical world): (pp. 422-451), New York, Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (2010). De anima. Focus Publishing.

Babaei, B., Shabaniyorki, B., Javidi Kalateh Jafarabadi, T., and Moghimi, A. (2018). Physical learning: A critique of the philosophical neuroscience approach to cognition and learning. Bi-Quarterly Journal of Philosophy of Education, 3(3), 90-61. (In Persian)

Bagheri, Kh. (2011). An introduction to the philosophy of education of the islamic republic of iran: objectives, principles and principles, volume one. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications. (In Persian)

Bruce. (1992). Models of teaching. 4rd. ed. Prentice- Hall. p. 32.

Bruer, T. J. (2008). Building brides in neuroeducation, In M. Battro, K. Fischer, & P. Lena, (Eds.), The educated brain (pp. 43-58.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chalmers, D. J. (2016). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism: in panpsychism. New York, Oxford University Press.

Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Corbi, J. E. & Prades, J. L. (2000). Minds, causes and mechanisms; a case against physicalism. Massachusetts, Blackwell.

Elahi Asl, M. J. (2019). A study of all psychoanalysis in the philosophy of the contemporary mind. Master Thesis in Philosophy, Farabi Campus, Elhat University, Tehran. (In Persian)

Fuller, J. L. (2001). An integrated hands on inquiry based cooperative learning approach: The impacts of the PALMS approach on student growth. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED453176.

Goff, P. (2009). Why panpsychism doesn't help us explain consciousness. Dialectica, 63(3), 289-311.

Goswami, U. (2004), Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(4), 1-14.

Goswami. U. (2005), Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goswami. U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?. Nature Review Neuroscience, 7(5), 406-413.

Goswami. U. (2010). Philosophy of mind. Boulder: West view Press.

Jafaria Tabrizi, M. T. (1979). Translation and interpretation of nahj al-balaghah (Volume 22). Tehran: Islamic Culture Publishing Office. (In Persian)

Koizumi, H. (2004). The concept of development the brain: a new natural science for learning and education. Brain & Development, 26, 434-441.

Mahdipour, M. (2015). Examining the argument of consciousness with emphasis on Morland's view. Master Thesis in Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran, Tehran. (In Persian)

Mashhadi, A. (2003).Theory of mind: a new approach to developmental psychology. Advances in Cognitive Sciences, 5(3), 70-83. (In Persian)

McLaughlin, B. P. (2016). Mind dust, magic, or a conceptual gap only?. Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, 1, 305-333.

Morland, J. P. (2010). Interview with Jay P. Morland: Human Personality and the Defeat of Naturalism. Pegah hozeh, 259. (In Persian)

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat?. The Philosophical Review, 83, 435-450.

Nagel, T. (2013). Mind and cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. Translated by Javad Heydari. Tehran: Negah Maser Publications. (In Persian)

Nagel, T. (2014). What does it all mean?: A very short introduction to philosophy. Translated by Javad Heidari. Tehran: Negah Maser Publications. (In Persian)

Nagel, T. (2018). Deadly questions. Translated by Javad Heidari, Tehran: Negah Maser Publications. (In Persian)

Peters, R. S. (2015). Ethics and education (routledge revivals). England, UK, Routledge.

Plantinga, A. (2013). In the critique of Darwinian materialism. translated by Yasser Mirdamadi, https://www.radiozamaneh.com/117906. (In Persian)

Ryle, G. (1998). Descartes myth. Translated by Massoud Omid. Kayhan Andisheh Magazine, No. 74. (In Persian)

Scholl, B. J & Leslie, A. M. (2001), Minds, modules, and metaanalysis. Child Development, 72, 696-701.

Seager, W. (2017). Panpsychist infusion. Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, 229-48.

Seager, W. (1995). Consciousness, information and panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 272-288.

Searle, J. R. (2004). Mind: a brief introduction. Translated by M. Yousefi. Tehran: Ney Publishing. (In Persian)

Siegel, D. (2012). The developing mind. USA: Guilford.

Skrbina, D. (2005), Panpsychism in the west. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Van Gulick, R. (2014). Consciousness. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/.

Wolfe, P. (1998). Minds, memory, and learning (training manual). Napa Valley, CA, MM&L.

Zakeri, M. (2011). Mental causation. Critique and Opinion, 15(2), 57. (In Persian)