Carr poses the question "Is Google making us stupid?" What is his answer? He claims that humans are not becoming stupid; they are, in fact, becoming more machine-like and losing the ability to do "human" things, such as analyze complex texts. For example, studies have shown that most people now skim web pages and jump around, never going back to reread, which is much like a search engine is in today's world. Carr provides a great analogy for the situation: "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski" (1).
Though Carr's claim can be seen as correct, it is not entirely applicable for all situations. We humans are still expressive, as evidenced in our love and addiction to certain social networking web sites (Facebook immediately comes to mind). The proliferation of blogging as a viable source of writing is another example of a need to be human. Though blogging is lacking in complexity, blogging remains a major output for human expression. A computer-like being would certainly not be such an avid proprietor of social networking or composing its own works.
Free will is what separates us from machines; computers respond only to the basic formula of "Input yields Output," whereas humans do things that, more often than not, make no sense, especially from a computer's point of view, such as writing down what we think, having and forming opinions, or having emotions. Would a computer talk with a person? Perhaps, but only if the person were to initiate the conversation.
Though our ability to think in the ways of the past may be drastically changing, we are becoming more intelligent. The answers to everything we have ever wondered slowly creep into our mind and remain there as we continue to use the Internet, a thought unheard of merely 25 years ago. If losing our old way of thinking is the only way to gain such intelligence, then I say out with the old and in with the new.
There is some support that you're right when you say we're actually getting more intelligent, and that could be a response to Carr's argument.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends how you define and measure intelligence. You might be interested in reading more about the Flynn Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect). Let me note that intelligence tests are flawed, but still this is an interesting contribution to the conversation.