Biocentrism posits the view that consciousness gives rise to matter, in opposition to the traditional view that matter is a precondition for the development of consciousness - but perhaps the truth is closer to a type of 'quantum enfolding'.
By way of analogy, some learning theories (notably those broadly classed as cognitivist) describe learning in terms of 'long-term and short term memory', storage' and processing'. These metaphors are purposefully drawn from a von Neuman conception of linear computer programming. Latterly, in a Jeckyll and Hyde reversal of fortune, cognitive computing is set to turn its back on a linear programming paradigm, in favour of neuronal, synapse-like, low-wattage brain-based parallel processing.
So, does thought and learning precede technology or does technology give rise to thought and learning? Does thought and learning involve both brain and mind? Perhaps the answer lies not so much in dialectical polarisation as in a recognition that brain and mind are not necessarily synonymous. Proceeding one step further, it might be argued that mind and brain are enfolded (and not necessarily in a one-to-one manner). So also, technology, on the one hand, and thought and learning, on the other, might be subject to a similar kind of enfolding. At which point, we are on the road to something approaching Sheldrake's definition of morphic fields and morphic resonance.