Abstract
The Internet allows humans to effortlessly communicate with each other in novel ways and delivers instantaneous access to vast amounts of information and accumulated knowledge. Recently, several scholars have made the case that the Internet can enhance human cognition, while others are skeptical or disagree. Within the context of the wider debate around human enhancement, to what extent can it be argued that the Internet enhances human cognition? In an effort to resolve this question, we examine three critical assumptions: (1) the Internet fosters an active learning environment characterized by deep and constructive learning, (2) the current design of the Internet benefits users and promotes adaptive behaviors, and (3) the Internet improves cognitive function. Our analysis systematizes the evidence presented in recent scholarship that points to either an optimistic or pessimistic view on whether the Internet can function as a cognitive enhancement—with some evidence, such as the “Google effect,” being cited by either side of the debate. Moreover, we find a clash of differing ideological views, which risks polarizing both the academic and the public debate on the topic. In the effort to advance this debate toward a conclusion based on the available objective facts and evidence, we argue for a nuanced approach: to designate the Internet as a technologically enabled environment, not as a single technological intervention that can be reliably expected to enhance or decrease cognition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
Interdisciplinary research into human cognition spans cognitive science, combining conceptual and empirical exploration of anthropology, biology, computer science, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology and their results (Colombo & Knauff, 2020).
Open-source code is software code developed and maintained by volunteer coding developers, and is available to the public for viewing, modifying, and free redistribution with certain constraints (Fitzgerald, 2006; Open Source Initiative, 2023). In comparison, closed-source code is proprietary software code with restrictions on viewing the code.
References
Aagaard, J. (2021). 4E cognition and the dogma of harmony. Philosophical Psychology, 34(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1845640
Adams, N. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152–153. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010
Ahmed, E., & Hens, K. (2020). Cognitive enhancement: toward a rational public consensus. AJOB Neuroscience, 11(4), 263–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1830871
Alavi, S. S., Ferdosi, M., Jannatifard, F., Eslami, M., Alaghemandan, H., & Setare, M. (2012). Behavioral addiction versus substance addiction: Correspondence of psychiatric and psychological views. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3(4), 290–294. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3354400/
Bigman, Y., & Gray, K. (2018). People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition, 181, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003
Blank, R. (2016). Regulating cognitive enhancement technologies. In F. Jotterland, & V. Dubljević (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives (pp. 239–258). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396818.003.0015
Bostrom, N. (2005). In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00437.x
Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5
Bottel, L., Brand, M., Dieris-Hirche, J., Pape, M., Herpertz, S., & Te Wildt, B. T. (2023). Predictive power of the DSM-5 criteria for Internet use disorder: a CHAID decision-tree analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1129769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129769
Brook, D. (1998). Enhancement of human function: some distinctions for policy makers. In E. Parens (Ed.), Enhancing human traits: ethical and social implications (pp. 48–69). Georgetown University Press.
Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brain. Norton & Company Inc.
Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311877
Ceci, L. (2022). Number of sent and received e-mails per day worldwide from 2017 to 2025(in billions). Statista. Retrieved February 23, 2023, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/456500/daily-number-of-e-mails-worldwide/
Centre for International Governance Innovation. (2019). 2019 CIGI-Ipsos global survey on Internet security and trust. https://www.cigionline.org/Internet-survey-2019
Chen, Y., Jensen, S., Albert, L. J., Gupta, S., & Lee, T. (2023). Artificial Intelligence (AI) student assistants in the classroom: designing chatbots to support student success. Information Systems Frontiers, 25, 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10291-4
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150
Coin, A., & Dubljević, V. (2020). The authenticity of machine-augmented human intelligence: therapy, enhancement, and the extended mind. Neuroethics, 14, 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09453-5
Coin, A., Mulder, M., & Dubljević, V. (2020). Ethical aspects of BCI technology: what is the state of the art? Philosophies, 5(31), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040031
Colombo, M., & Knauff, M. (2020). Editors’ review and introduction: levels of explanation in cognitive science: from molecules to culture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1224–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12503
Dawe, K. (2015). Best practice in business-to-business email. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 16, 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1057/dddmp.2015.21
Dennis, M. A., & Kahn, R. (2020). Internet. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 1, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/technology/Internet
Dresler, M., & Repantis, D. (2015). Chapter 11 - Cognitive enhancement in humans. In S. Knafo, & C. Venero (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement (pp. 273–306). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417042-1.00011-5
Dubicka, B., Martin, J., & Firth, J. (2019). Editorial: screen time, social media and developing brains: a cause for good or corrupting young minds? Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 24(3), 203–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12346
Dubljević, V. (2019). Neuroethics, justice and autonomy: public reason in the cognitive enhancement debate. Springer.
Dubljević, V., & Ryan, C. J. (2015). Cognitive enhancement with methylphenidate and modafinil: conceptual advances and societal implications. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics, 4, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.2147/NAN.S61925
Dubljević, V., Venero, C., & Knafo, S. (2015). Chapter 1 - What is cognitive enhancement? In Knafo, S., & Venero, C. (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement (pp. 1–9). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417042-1.00001-2
Earp, B., Sandberg, A., Kahane, G., & Savulescu, J. (2014). When is diminishment a form of enhancement? Rethinking the enhancement debate in biomedical ethics. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8(12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00012
Falkinger, J. (2007). Attention economies. Journal of Economic Theory, 133(1), 266–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2005.12.001
Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., Firth, J. A., Steiner, G. Z., Smith, L., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Gleeson, J., Vancampfort, D., Armitage, C. J., & Sarris, J. (2019). The “online brain”: how the Internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry, 18(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20617
Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: how the internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000070
Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The transformation of open source software. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148740
Gallo, A. (2012). Stop email overload. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved October 20, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2012/02/stop-email-overload-1
Gaus, G. (2012). The order of public reason: A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. Cambridge University Press.
Giere, R. N. (2012). Scientific cognition: human centered but not human bound. Philosophical Explorations, 15(2), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2012.677850
Haghighatfard, A., Ghaderi, A. H., Mostajabi, P., Kashfi, S. S., MohabatiSomehsarayee, H., Shahrani, M., Mehrasa, M., Haghighat, S., Farhadi, M., MomayezSefat, M., Shiryazdi, A. A., Ezzati, N., Qazvini, M. G., Alizadenik, A., & Moghadam, E. R. (2023). The first genome-wide association study of Internet addiction; revealed substantial shared risk factors with neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 133, 104393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104393
Halpin, H., Clark, A., & Wheeler, M. (2014). Towards a philosophy of the Web: Representation, enaction, collective intelligence. In A. Monnin & H. Halpin (Eds.), Philosophical engineering: Toward a philosophy of the Web (pp. 21–30). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118700143
Heersmink, R. (2016). The Internet, cognitive enhancement, and the values of cognition. Minds & Machines, 26, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-016-9404-3
Heersmink, R., & Sutton, J. (2020). Cognition and the web: extended, transactive, or scaffolded? Erkenntnis, 85, 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0022-8
International Telecommunication Union. (2023, February 01). ITU Data Hub: World. Retrieved February 23, 2023, from https://datahub.itu.int/
Kaspar, K., Weber, S. L., & Wilbers, A. K. (2019). Personally relevant online advertisements: Effects of demographic targeting on visual attention and brand evaluation. PLoS One, 14(2), e0212419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212419
Kelly, M. O., & Risko, E. F. (2022). Study effort and the memory cost of external store availability. Cognition, 228, 105228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105228
Korte, M. (2020). The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: where do we stand? Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 22(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mkorte
Korte, M. (2013). Cellular correlates of learning and memory. In C. G. Galizia, & P. Lledo (Eds.), Neurosciences - From molecule to behavior: A university textbook (pp. 577–608). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1007/978-3-642-10769-6_26
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., Karila, L., & Billieux, J. (2014). Internet addiction: a systematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20(25), 4026–4052. https://doi.org/10.2174/13816128113199990617
Lampit, A., Hallock, H., & Valenzuela, M. (2014). Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS Medicine, 11(11), e1001756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756
Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics. Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: a longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science., 50(11), 1519–1533. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0257
Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2016). How has the Internet reshaped human cognition? The Neuroscientist, 22(5), 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858415595005
Marciano, L., Camerini, A., & Schulz, P. J. (2021). Neuroticism and Internet addiction: what is next? A systematic conceptual review. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111260
McPhail, G., & Rata, E. (2016). Comparing curriculum types: ‘Powerful knowledge’ and ‘21st century learning.’ New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0025-9
Open Source Initiative. (2023) The open source definition. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://opensource.org/osd/
Pugh, J., Maslen, H., & Savulescu, J. (2017). Deep brain stimulation, authenticity and value. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 26(4), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000147
Racine, E., Sattler, S., & Boehlen, W. (2021). Cognitive enhancement: unanswered questions about human psychology and social behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00294-w
Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Fenn, K. M. (2017). Logged in and zoned out: how laptop Internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychological Science, 28(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616677314
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). Columbia University Press.
Risko, E. F., Buchanan, D., Medimorec, S., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Everyday attention: mind wandering and computer use during lectures. Computers and Education, 68, 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.001
Roy, K. K., Singh, S., & Ratra, S. (2018). Social-Network-Sites (SNS) & its impact on students’ academic learning. 2018 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E), Chennai, India, 174–177. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8590133
Schmidt, A., Pfleging, B., Alt, F., Sahami, S., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2012). Interacting with 21st-century computers. Pervasive Computing, 11(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2011.81
Shawn Green, C., Bavelier, D., Kramer, A., Vinogradov, S., Ansorge, U., Ball, K., Bingel, U., Chein, J., Colzato, L., Edwards, J., Facoetti, A., Gazzaley, A., Gathercole, S., Ghisletta, P., Gori, S., Granic, I., Hillman, C., Hommel, B., Jaeggi, S., … Witt, C. (2019). Improving methodological standards in behavioral interventions for cognitive enhancement. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 3, 2–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0115-y
Shim, J. P., Avital, M., Dennis, A. R., Rossi, M., Sørensen, C., & French, A. M. (2019). The transformative effect of the Internet of Things on business and society. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04405
Short, M. N., & Uzochukwu, C. (2018). Mobile technology integration and student learning outcomes. In Keengwe, J. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning (pp. 178–196). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3949-0.ch010
Smart, P. (2017). Extended cognition and the Internet: a review of current issues and controversies. Philosophy & Technology, 30(3), 357–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0250-2
Smart, P. R., & Clowes, R. W. (2021). Intellectual virtues and internet-extended knowledge. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 10(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0250-2
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science (american Association for the Advancement of Science), 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
Thuraisingham, B., Gupta, A., Bertino, E., & Ferrari, E. (2002). Collaborative commerce and knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.132
Varshney, L. (2012). The Google effect in doctoral theses. Scientometrics, 92, 785–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0654-4
Veit, W., Earp, B. D., Faber, N., Bostrom, N., Caouette, J., Mannino, A., Caviola, L., Sandberg, A., & Savulescu, J. (2020). Recognizing the diversity of cognitive enhancements. AJOB Neuroscience, 11(4), 250–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1830878
Voarino, N., Dubljević, V., & Racine, E. (2017). tDCS for memory enhancement: analysis of the speculative aspects of ethical issues. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(678), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00678
Vogels, E. (2019). The longer and more often people use Facebook, the more ad preferences the site lists about them. Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/03/facebook-ad-preferences-linked-to-frequency-of-use-age-of-account/
Voinea, C., Vică, C., Mihailov, E., & Savulescu, J. (2020). The Internet as cognitive enhancement. Science Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2345–2362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00210-8
Vrecko, S. (2013). Just how cognitive is “cognitive enhancement”? On the significance of emotions in university students’ experiences with study drugs. AJOB Neuroscience, 4(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2012.740141
Wammes, J., Ralph, B., Mills, C., Bosch, N., Duncan, T., & Smilek, D. (2019). Disengagement during lectures: Media multitasking and mind wandering in university classrooms. Computers & Education, 132, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.007
Ward, A. F. (2013). Supernormal: How the Internet is changing our memories and our minds. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.850148
Warwick, K. (2014). The cyborg revolution. NanoEthics, 8, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0212-z
Wheeler, M. (2019). The reappearing tool: transparency, smart technology, and the extended mind. AI & Society, 34(4), 857–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0824-x
Wilson, R. A. (2014). Ten questions concerning extended cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2013.828568
Wu, Y., Outley, C., Matarrita-Cascante, D., & Murphrey, T. P. (2016). A systematic review of recent research on adolescent social connectedness and mental health with Internet technology use. Adolescent Research Review, 1, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-015-0013-9
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of the NeuroComputational Ethics Research Group at North Carolina State University for their valuable discussion and feedback—in alphabetical order, Austin Berg, Parker Day, Nora Edgren, Elizabeth Eskander, Hannah Harwick, Brook Ireland, Seth Kodikara, Brian Lee, Iris McCall, Anirudh Nair, Michael Pflanzer, and Abigail Presley. Special thanks to Megan Mulder for editorial assistance and Mai Ibrahim for a critical review. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2021 South Carolina Philosophical Society meeting and the international conference “Enhancement: Cognitive, Moral and Mood” March 1–2, 2021, Belgrade, Serbia. We have benefitted greatly from constructive discussion during these two events.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.D. contributed to conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing. A.C. contributed to formal analysis and writing—review and editing. V.D. contributed to conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, project administration, supervision, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dempsey, R.P., Coin, A. & Dubljević, V. Is the Internet a Cognitive Enhancement?. J Cogn Enhanc 8, 155–169 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-024-00289-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-024-00289-y