Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 389–407 | Cite as

The Internet, Cognitive Enhancement, and the Values of Cognition

  • Richard Heersmink
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper has two distinct but related goals: (1) to identify some of the potential consequences of the Internet for our cognitive abilities and (2) to suggest an approach to evaluate these consequences. I begin by outlining the Google effect, which (allegedly) shows that when we know information is available online, we put less effort into storing that information in the brain. Some argue that this strategy is adaptive because it frees up internal resources which can then be used for other cognitive tasks, whereas others argue that this is maladaptive because it makes us less knowledgeable. I argue that the currently available empirical evidence in cognitive psychology does not support strong conclusions about the negative effects of the Internet on memory. Before we can make value-judgements about the cognitive effects of the Internet, we need more robust and ecologically-valid evidence. Having sketched a more nuanced picture of the Google effect, I then argue that the value of our cognitive abilities is in part intrinsic and in part instrumental, that is, they are both valuable in themselves and determined by the socio-cultural context in which these cognitive abilities are utilised. Focussing on instrumental value, I argue that, in an information society such as ours, having the skills to efficiently navigate, evaluate, compare, and synthesize online information are (under most circumstances) more valuable than having a lot of facts stored in biological memory. This is so, partly because using the Internet as an external memory system has overall benefits for education, navigation, journalism, and academic scholarship.

Keywords

Internet Google effect External memory Cognitive enhancement Cognitive technology Values and information technology Information ethics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Neil Levy for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Ideas in this paper have been presented at the Third International Conference on Interactivity, Language and Cognition in London; the International Association of Philosophy and Computing Conference in Ferrara; and at a departmental seminar at the philosophy department of Macquarie University. I would like the audiences for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. Lastly, I want to thank the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments significantly improved the article.

References

  1. Agar, N. (2014). Truly human enhancement: A philosophical defense of limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, V., Bishop, D., & Przybylski, A. (2015). The debate over digital technology and young people needs less shock and more substance. British Medical Journal. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3064.Google Scholar
  4. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. (2011). Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement and the public interest. In J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, & G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing human capabilities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brey, P. (2005). The epistemology and ontology of human–computer interaction. Minds and Machines, 15(3), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan, A. (2011). Better than human: The promise and perils of enhancing ourselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, J. A., & Pritchard, D. (forthcoming). The epistemology of cognitive enhancement. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Google Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clowes, R. (2015). Thinking in the cloud: The cognitive incorporation of cloud-based technology. Philosophy & Technology, 28(2), 261–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Consalvo, M., & Ess, C. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of internet studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of our cognitive system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action Is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dunlop, M., & Savulescu, J. (2014). Distributive justice and cognitive enhancement in lower, normal intelligence. Monash Bioethics Review, 32(3), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dutton, W. H. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fallis, D. (2009). Introduction: The epistemology of mass collaboration. Episteme, 6(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferguson, A. M., McLean, D., & Risko, E. F. (2015). Answers at your fingertips: Access to the internet influences willingness to answer questions. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144(3), 674–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goldman, A. I. (2008). The social epistemology of blogging. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 111–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Greenfield, S. (2014). Mind change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains. London: Rider Books.Google Scholar
  26. Greengard, S. (2015). The internet of things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Heersmink, R. (2015). Extended mind and cognitive enhancement: Moral aspects of cognitive artifacts. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s11097-015-9448-5.Google Scholar
  28. Heersmink, R. (2016). The metaphysics of cognitive artifacts. Philosophical Explorations, 19(1), 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heinrich, H., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hirsch, F. (1977). Social limits to growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  31. Hongladarom, S. (2004). Making information transparent as a means to close the global digital divide. Minds and Machines, 14(1), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kornblith, H. (1980). Referring to artifacts. The Philosophical Review, 89(1), 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kukla, R. (2012). “Author TBD”: Radical collaboration in contemporary biomedical research. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 845–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21th century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2015). How has the internet reshaped human cognition? The Neuroscientist. doi: 10.1177/1073858415595005.Google Scholar
  36. Lynch, M. (2016). The internet of us: Knowing more and understanding less in the age of big data. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, B., & Record, I. (2013). Justified belief in a digital age: On the epistemic implications of secret internet technologies. Episteme, 10(2), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mills, K. L. (2014). Effects of internet use on the adolescent brain: Despite popular claims, experimental evidence remains scarce. Trends in Cognitive Science, 18(8), 385–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nestojko, J. F., Finley, J. R., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Extending cognition to external agents. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plato. (1925). Phaedrus (H. N. Fowler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sacks, O. (1985). The man who mistook his wife for a hat and other clinical tales. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  44. Sassenberg, K. (2013). It is about the web and its user: The effects of web use depend on person characteristics. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon, J. (2010). The entanglement of trust and knowledge on the Web. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simpson, D. (2012). Evaluating Google as an epistemic tool. Metaphilosophy, 43(4), 426–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smart, P. (2014). Embodiment, cognition, and the world wide web. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Smart, P., Heersmink, R., & Clowes, R. (2017). The cognitive ecology of the Internet. In S. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain: Computation, interactivity and human artifice (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Smart, P., & Shadbolt, N. (forthcoming). The world wide web. In J. Chase & D. Coady (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied epistemology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Sparrow, B., & Chatman, L. (2013a). Social cognition in the internet age: Same as it ever was? Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 272–292.Google Scholar
  51. Sparrow, B., & Chatman, L. (2013b). We’re not burning down the house: Synthesizing pre-internet, current findings, and future research on social cognition and being online. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stahl, B. C., et al. (2010a). Identifying the ethics of emerging information and communication technologies: An essay on issues, concepts and method. International Journal of Technoethics, 1(4), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stahl, B. C., et al. (2010b). Issues, concepts and methods relating to the identification of the ethics of emerging ICTs. Communications of the International Information Management Association, 10(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
  55. Staley, D. J. (2014). Brain, mind and internet: A deep history and future. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sullins, J. (2012). Information technology and moral values. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/it-moral-values/.
  57. Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 189–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tavani, H. (2012). Search engines and ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-search/.
  59. Thompson, C. (2013). Smarter than you think: How technology is changing our minds for the better. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  60. Tulving, E. (1993). What is episodic memory? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van den Hoven, J. (2007). ICT and value sensitive design. In P. Goujon, S. Lavelle, P. Duquenoy, K. Kimppa, & V. Laurent (Eds.), The information society: Innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Van den Hoven, J., & Manders-Huits, N. (2009). Value-sensitive design. In J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 477–480). Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Dijk, J., & van Deursen, J. (2014). Digital skills: Unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walsh, P. (2016). Cognitive extension, enhancement, and the phenomenology of thinking. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s11097-016-9461-3.Google Scholar
  65. Wegner, D. M., & Ward, A. F. (2013). The internet has become the external hard drive for our memories. Scientific American, 309(6), 58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zimmerman, M. (2014). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic value. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options