Consciousness education: Why an enquiry into consciousness is an educational and spiritual imperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a case for including consciousness studies within the educational curriculum from early years through to postcompulsory education. We contend that its current exclusion is due to the deep embeddedness in society of the materialist assumption that the brain produces consciousness. Hence, as a subject of study, consciousness is considered only of relevance to neuroscientists. Informed by this same assumption, notions of spirituality are also seen to be the product of neuronal interactions, and are ultimately illusory, rather than indicating the existence of a different kind of reality. However, there is no incontrovertible evidence to support this assumption, which is increasingly being questioned by leading-edge scientists, spiritual thinkers, and philosophers. Supported by findings from quantum physics, and from the wisdom of indigenous knowledges, there is a growing interest in alternative theories, such as the idea that consciousness may be primary, and matter may be an emergent property of consciousness. We examine arguments for these radically different perspectives, and how they inform, and are informed by, different worldviews. We argue that young people need to be made aware of those alternative worldviews so that they can make informed choices about who they are as spiritual beings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".