I'm not an expert in the philosophy of mind, but I did just finish a class that spent a lot of time talking about the Churchlands. I figured I'd give my two cents in case someone might be curious as to weaknesses in their arguments.
The way the Churchlands' approach the mind is through reductive materialism. Basically they argue that the mind is identical to the brain given that brain process A causes mental/internal process B. With that reduction we should either eliminate language for mental experience or root it entirely in the corresponding physical process.
This sort of reduction is more or less a scientific reduction in that it serves an explanatory purpose. However, some philosophers reject the idea that scientific reduction is sufficient for a philosophical reduction which is something along the lines of brain process A completely explaining mental experience B. The problem that a philosophical reduction poses is that of internal experience.
Non-reductionists would argue that no amount of physical data could explain subjective experience. Brain scans can show what happens physiologically when you are happy, but not the 'what it's like to be happy'. Whether or not that's convincing to you is a matter of personal preference.
The bottom line seems to be that there is a major physical aspect to the mind, but also that we feel like we are more than chemical reactions. It is not clear that we can practically get rid of either dualism or materialism.
If you are curious, look at Thomas Nagel, and 'the hard problem of consciousness' by Chalmers.
This is an awesome idea! I've been toying with something similar for a while. Have you considered moving past a MOOC model to something more like an apprenticeship?
While the pricing model would be different, it might allow for a more personalized learning experience and a relationship between tutor and tutee. Either way, I love that you are making self motivated learning more accessible.
There is a startup called Springboard that is working on something like that, although I do not understand all the details. I agree - that is an awesome idea - the domain here is restricted to MOOCs because it's closed form and standardized, where tutors can be recruited for their expertise in a given course. An apprenticeship requires, I think, a much broader approach to what constitutes a "match" between both parties, and the interactions would need to be facilitated in a completely different way.
For the past year, I've obsessed over ideas about education and credentials. I'm confident that the problems I'm interested in exist and are important.I would love the opportunity to test, refine and create my ideas. However, I am 18 and lack the skills and connections to do much more than pitch ideas to my friends or strangers on the internet.
Forget you're 18, you don't magically get the skills you need at a certain age. You get them by starting as soon as you are ready. You don't need anything else. The first steps towards your ideas may seem trivial and even too easy but it is a start and when you get chances to pitch and discuss your voice will be all the more louder for the effort you have put in on your own initiative.
The schools system most definitely has its issues as far as curriculum is concerned. However I think the problem is more in the way schools are structured than what they teach. Salman Khan has a great book about it.
Curriculum organization is one of his main points. An alternative to periods and subjects is a sort of freeform classroom with unpaced curriculum with several teachers circulating to help. This is supposed to avoid classes moving too quickly or too slowly and continually engage students.
I second that curriculum organization is terrible in most schools. This became obvious when I was working on a mobile game. It involved a wide range of subjects from (obviously) programming, geometry, algebra, logic, design, etc. I imagine that if students had a project they would touch on many different subjects. This would be a lot more effective than learning subjects in a silo with no understanding of practical application.
Improving tactics towards the wrong strategy is better, but not best. Full stop replacement of some subjects with other subjects would make more "useful" people. If the goal isn't utility, any subject can be defended as being as valuable as any other subject, because they all have side benefits which they leach value from. Like the defense that video games improve hand eye coordination.
Warning, I might not be as smart as I think I am and this may be irrelevant. I am a college student who has coasted his entire life. My father is a professor and probably the only reason I am not socially isolated. From my experience(which may or may not be relevant) being this gifted is a lot like living an RPG.
.The person you are when interacting is nothing but a character. You have to fake engagement, interest, and ability in order to have friends or you can be alone.
.You need to give your life some long term goal otherwise no work has meaning because it serves no use. However, say your goal is to cure cancer you know you have to do well in school and social to later gain access to the resources necessary for your goal. An RPG without a quest is no fun.
The way the Churchlands' approach the mind is through reductive materialism. Basically they argue that the mind is identical to the brain given that brain process A causes mental/internal process B. With that reduction we should either eliminate language for mental experience or root it entirely in the corresponding physical process.
This sort of reduction is more or less a scientific reduction in that it serves an explanatory purpose. However, some philosophers reject the idea that scientific reduction is sufficient for a philosophical reduction which is something along the lines of brain process A completely explaining mental experience B. The problem that a philosophical reduction poses is that of internal experience.
Non-reductionists would argue that no amount of physical data could explain subjective experience. Brain scans can show what happens physiologically when you are happy, but not the 'what it's like to be happy'. Whether or not that's convincing to you is a matter of personal preference.
The bottom line seems to be that there is a major physical aspect to the mind, but also that we feel like we are more than chemical reactions. It is not clear that we can practically get rid of either dualism or materialism.
If you are curious, look at Thomas Nagel, and 'the hard problem of consciousness' by Chalmers.