Skip to main content

The Internet, Cognitive Enhancement, and the Values of Cognition

Minds and Machines volume 26, pages 389–407 (2016)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Cognitive technologies can be characterised as physical objects that are used to aid humans in performing cognitive tasks (Clark 1997; Brey 2005; Heersmink 2016). Examples include maps, diagrams, models, checklists, calendars, timetables, calculators, computer systems, and many other artifacts. The informational properties and functionalities of such artifacts are crucial for performing a wide range of cognitive tasks, including navigating, calculating, planning, remembering, decision-making, and reasoning.

  2. Although these are available online and thus remediated, most of these also still exist independently of the Web, that is, in their original, un-remediated form.

  3. Floridi (2014) has argued that contemporary humans are “inforgs”, that is, informational organisms who live in an “infosphere”, an ecosystem of information. This infosphere is largely constituted by the Internet.

  4. Most digital texts have this functionality, so it is not unique to online information.

  5. This view or design paradigm in computer science is also referred as “ubiquitous computing” or “ambient intelligence”.

  6. However, it is also important to keep in mind that our memory and cognition have been co-evolving with cognitive technologies for a long time (Donald 1991; Staley 2014). The Internet is just the most recent in a long history of cognitive technologies (Smart et al. 2017).

  7. http://www.internetlivestats.com/.

  8. To be fair, this quote is from Scientific American, which is a popular science outlet and may therefore invite less nuanced statements.

  9. Dourish (2001) argues that design paradigms in computer science should focus more on our embodied interactions with computer systems. The more computer interfaces mimic the real world, the more intuitive they are to use. This is partly so because our procedural memory systems have evolved to interact with objects and structures in the real world.

  10. For more conceptual research on Internet epistemology see, for example, Simon (2010), Fallis (2009) or Goldman (2008). For research on epistemology, cognitive enhancement and extended cognition, see Carter and Pritchard (forthcoming).

  11. These are by no means the only three cognitive issues associated with the Internet, but I do think they cover a substantial part. Another issue is that reading hypertext is more distracting than reading analogue text. The increased demands on decision-making and visual processing when reading hypertext impair reading performance (DeStefano and LeFevre 2007). This may, in turn, effect memory performance as well.

  12. But perhaps each human agent is able to subjectively determine which cognitive skill is more intrinsically valuable to the agent. For example, one person may find being able to solve Sudoku puzzles highly intrinsically valuable, whereas another person experiences little value in solving Sudokus. So, the intrinsic value of cognitive skills is subjective.

  13. Recall that the Web was initially invented to enhance academic scholarship (mainly in astronomy) by making it easier to store and communicate large amounts of information. Currently, that is just one of the many applications.

  14. See, for example, Borgman (2007) for a book-length study of how the Internet has changed academic practice. Likewise, Kukla (2012) discusses how the Internet has made massively distributed research in medical science of a scale that was unthinkable before possible.

References

  • Agar, N. (2014). Truly human enhancement: A philosophical defense of limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2005). The epistemology and ontology of human–computer interaction. Minds and Machines, 15(3), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. (2011). Better than human: The promise and perils of enhancing ourselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. A., & Pritchard, D. (forthcoming). The epistemology of cognitive enhancement. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.

  • Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clowes, R. (2015). Thinking in the cloud: The cognitive incorporation of cloud-based technology. Philosophy & Technology, 28(2), 261–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Consalvo, M., & Ess, C. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of internet studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of our cognitive system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action Is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, M., & Savulescu, J. (2014). Distributive justice and cognitive enhancement in lower, normal intelligence. Monash Bioethics Review, 32(3), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, W. H. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallis, D. (2009). Introduction: The epistemology of mass collaboration. Episteme, 6(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Greenfield, S. (2014). Mind change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains. London: Rider Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greengard, S. (2015). The internet of things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Heersmink, R. (2016). The metaphysics of cognitive artifacts. Philosophical Explorations, 19(1), 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, H., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, F. (1977). Social limits to growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hongladarom, S. (2004). Making information transparent as a means to close the global digital divide. Minds and Machines, 14(1), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblith, H. (1980). Referring to artifacts. The Philosophical Review, 89(1), 109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, R. (2012). “Author TBD”: Radical collaboration in contemporary biomedical research. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 845–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21th century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2015). How has the internet reshaped human cognition? The Neuroscientist. doi:10.1177/1073858415595005.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Miller, B., & Record, I. (2013). Justified belief in a digital age: On the epistemic implications of secret internet technologies. Episteme, 10(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nestojko, J. F., Finley, J. R., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Extending cognition to external agents. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (1925). Phaedrus (H. N. Fowler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

  • Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, O. (1985). The man who mistook his wife for a hat and other clinical tales. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (2010). The entanglement of trust and knowledge on the Web. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. (2012). Evaluating Google as an epistemic tool. Metaphilosophy, 43(4), 426–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Smart, P., & Shadbolt, N. (forthcoming). The world wide web. In J. Chase & D. Coady (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied epistemology. New York: Routledge.

  • Sparrow, B., & Chatman, L. (2013a). Social cognition in the internet age: Same as it ever was? Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 272–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Staley, D. J. (2014). Brain, mind and internet: A deep history and future. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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/.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tavani, H. (2012). Search engines and ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-search/.

  • Thompson, C. (2013). Smarter than you think: How technology is changing our minds for the better. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. (1993). What is episodic memory? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, J., & van Deursen, J. (2014). Digital skills: Unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wegner, D. M., & Ward, A. F. (2013). The internet has become the external hard drive for our memories. Scientific American, 309(6), 58–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Richard Heersmink

Authors
  1. Richard Heersmink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Heersmink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heersmink, R. The Internet, Cognitive Enhancement, and the Values of Cognition. Minds & Machines 26, 389–407 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-016-9404-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-016-9404-3

Keywords

  • Internet
  • Google effect
  • External memory
  • Cognitive enhancement
  • Cognitive technology
  • Values and information technology
  • Information ethics