Comments on: Intelligence in the Internet age
Philosophers, technologists and, yes, writers debate whether today's technology is making for a brainier world.
Philosophers, technologists and, yes, writers debate whether today's technology is making for a brainier world.
November 23, 2009 11:54 AM PST
November 23, 2009 11:38 AM PST
November 23, 2009 11:36 AM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
For more discussion, please visit my web site at:
http://due.hypermart.net/duelearningsystem/topic.html
Hua
I was a child of the 50's, in the 60's I took a class for programming unit record equipment (hardwired programming). Utilizing a IBM 360/20. In this process I had a father that used to be Upper Peninsula backwoodsman, he passed these skills onto me. As well as doing vehicle repair and maintenance. Believe it or not I even understand the complexities of the computer cars, as strange as it may seem the cars are simpler, In the 80's I got a chance to go to college to get a degree in BDP/CIS (Business Data Processing/Computer Information Systems). A continuation of what schooling I had in the 60's. Today I have kept up with the internet, I own my own little, more or less, where I teach a small business person to develop their own web site. This because a person can spend hundreds of dollars and still not get what they want.
Thanks for listening anyway.
http://www.rickswebfactory.com/
Perhaps this isn't valid, but for a lark (because I remember how to use it) I searched Google for the phrase "Memory is more irelavant", no hits. I wonder really which real academics think that this statement is true. This is lazy journalism.
Time should be spent on discussing how we have to change and adapt human capabilities given the vast resources we have so that we can increase the potentioal of humanity. Now that would be worth remembering.
And ironically if you Google "Memory is more irelavant" the only hit is your own post! hahah
Before web page publishing we had feather and ink.
But is the increase in technology at the expense of our brain.
Well considering we only use 10% of our brain, you have to wonder why we are not utilising the other 90%. Perhaps it is technology and our inventions that stop the full potential of use, as we rely more and more on what our hands have created.
Perhaps the Internet will give us telepathic like ability with instant communication with anyone, anywhere, anytime? But with all the marvel of technology will we only need to use 5% of our brain in the future, due to our reliance on technology to do the rest?
E.g., who needs a memory when we have as much artificial memory as we desire.
The real test would be to take a technophobe and remove all his technology. He would then have to exercise his brain in new ways, instead of the limited connections to technology he has.
The human and his technology forms a unit that is almost cyborg in nature; the synergy of that unit is not to be taken lightly.
In your article, you mention that a forcaster of ecomonics today would be lost with "slide rule skills" of the past. But really, how difficult is it to use a slide rule? I was using one in grade school! Really, it's not hard to pick up the basics in just a few minutes. On the other hand, someone from the slide-rule era would have a harder go at adapting to today's computers and software.
We do not exist seperately from our technology. We merge with it, and we become more and more inseperable with each passing day. We change the technology and the technology changes us. Man and machine form a symbiotic and synergestic union that is greater than the parts. We are transformed by technology, and that is both a good and a bad thing.
Bureaucrats use technology as an excuse to do less work. For instance, if you need them to do something out of the ordaniry, they will exclaim that the computer does not allow for it, and cannot procede unless you acquese to the computer -- or more importantly, the bureaucracy that wrote its programs.
It is truly a "brave new world", and in the future, technology will make bigger impacts on us and what it means to be "human" and "intelligent
, as surely we will make big changes on technology.
in the comic books we used to read? Organizing one's thoughts has always been a supreme problem
when wanting to relate to any new concept. So, when the SAT question stuns your senses...it has
to be amazing for kids today to relate to a handheld computer or if on their localized desktop
pulling up Google for a quick answer. The many
old troglodytes that refuse to join the computer
society today are the same ones that sat in caves
after the discovery of fire and said that techy
stuff was too scary for them to deal with and ate
their dinosaurs - hair, bone and all.
We have to admit that when we don't know the answer to any question - we start our interdisaplinary study on the nearest search engine and can't wait to discover the year that
the wheel was first discovered or how many calories the average American ingests every year.
Thank goodness there are still giving and caring
people out there that can't wait to dispense "their form of the truth".... but it
certainly gives us a great starting point doesn't it now?
Intelligence is not knowledge. If anything, the idea that tech leads to intelligence is the sign that we are getting dumber. Luckily, intelligent people do not believe this.
Better put: intelligence lies in the questions, not the answers.
> What makes us intelligent--the ability to reason
> and learn--is staying the same and will never
> fundamentally change because of technology.
For an individual this might be true. The intelligence of a population on the other hand can change because of technology, for example if
technologically apt people get more (or less)
children.
There is a terrible cost when someone says, "Why bother knowing anything? I'll just Google it!"
- by sloppycrane October 6, 2009 2:51 PM PDT
- I think that what we easily forget is that the common person has traditionally been unable to leave a mark on history. The people who are remembered for their brightness are the one's that had the time or resources to exercise it. The proportion is probably about the same now, but Joe Shmoe has a much louder voice, creating the impression maybe that we are getting dumber.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)