Discussions of Human Interaction with Digital Technology in An Increasingly Digital Age

1

Leigh Orlando­Ward

STS490

December 17th, 2014

Discussions of Human Interaction with Digital Technology in An Increasingly Digital Age

As technology becomes more and more a part of our core constitution as societal beings,

it becomes increasingly paramount to understand the relationship of humans and pieces of

technology on a foundational level in order to dictate an essential part of humanity’s path

through the future. There is significant modern controversy over general trends of use of

technology. Some people are optimistic toward technology and argue for its rapid and extreme

expansion. Others are pessimistic and argue for control and restriction of technological growth.

Many technologies are discussed in these debates. Digital technologies specifically are a popular

contemporary conversation topic. Due to its current significance, digital tech is of particular

interest. This paper analyzes the modern controversy over increasing use of human attachment to

digital tech. Initially, an overview of the more general controversies over modern tech will help

place the specific discussions of digital technology in perspective. Integration with and

advancement of technology overall comes with connected social and scientific issues which

apply to all progressing industries. An initial overview of some contemporary discussions of tech

will supply a basis for further analysis of the controversy regarding increased use of digital

technology in particular. This paper aims to analyze, describe, and understand some of the more

significant beliefs, theories, and concepts which are involved in the modern controversy over

increasing use of digital technology.

2

Techno­Optimism vs. Techno­Pessimism

Capitalist and technological pioneer Elon Musk captures the broad controversy over

technological dependency and application well, though perhaps rather bluntly and in a biased

tone, in this statement from an interview with a writer named Ross Andersen:

"‘It’s funny,’ he [Musk] told me [Andersen]. ‘Not everyone loves humanity. Either

explicitly or implicitly, some people seem to think that humans are a blight on the Earth’s

surface. They say things like, “Nature is so wonderful; things are always better in the

countryside where there are no people around.” They imply that humanity and

civilisation are less good than their absence. But I’m not in that school,’ he said. ‘I think

we have a duty to maintain the light of consciousness, to make sure it continues into the

future.’” 1

This basic and general controversy seems to be acknowledged on some level in most

conversations about new technologies and controversies surrounding them. It is, at least in this

statement, over­exaggerated, however. The groups which see humanity as a, ‘blight on the

Earth’s surface,’ are not necessarily large in number. The Voluntary Human Extinction

Movement does exist, but it is an extreme example. In the popular sphere of discussion, there 2

are two broad but distinguishable groups of opinion in discussions of technologies and their

effects. A journalist, Aaron Saenz, writing about attachment to digital technology notes that,

“The history of techno­optimism versus techno­pessimism is long, probably dating back to those

1 Ross Andersen, "The Elon Musk Interview on Mars Colonisation," Aeon Magazine. September 30, 2014. Accessed October 6, 2014. 2 "Sui Genocide." The Economist. December 17, 1998. Accessed November 7, 2014. http://www.economist.com/node/179963.

3

who feared the wheel would lead to less time spent in the cave with the family.” The two groups 3

involved in the controversy at hand, at least in this author’s terminology, would then be

techno­optimists and techno­pessimists. Though they are simplistic, these terms represent the

opposing opinions fairly well.

Elon Musk, the founder of companies such as PayPal, Tesla, and SpaceX represents an

extreme techno­optimist. Musk gained his wealth in multiple technological industries, such as 4

the founding of the online currency exchange program PayPal. After finding early success,

“Musk decided idle hedonism wasn’t for him, and instead sank his fortune into a pair of

unusually ambitious startups. With Tesla he would replace the world’s cars with electric

vehicles, and with SpaceX he would colonise Mars.” Musk believes in rapid technological 5

advancement for humanitarian reasons, as opposed to a purely entrepreneurial interest, and he

places research into colonisation of other planets as just as, if not more, important than work on

the typically considered world issues such as poverty, famine, and peace. Musk’s

techno­optimism is rooted in his convictions about what is truly important in the world. In this

example, ideas of techno­optimism and techno­pessimism are shown to rely essentially on

personal core values and intentions, not just opinions about technology. The controversy then, at

least for people like Musk, is of the utmost significance.

Another example of a fairly popular, but perhaps also extreme, techno­optimist is the

inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil and his Singularity Theory. Kurzweil gained his fortune

through developing a variety of inventions, most famously his Kurzweil electric keyboards, and

3 Aaron Saenz, "Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds," Singularity Hub. August 26, 2010. Accessed October 10, 2014. http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/26/are­we­too­plugged­in­distracted­vs­enhanced­minds/. 4 Ross, "The Elon Musk Interview on Mars Colonisation" 5 Aaron Saenz, "Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds"

4

went on to fame through his postulations of future technologies published over multiple decades.

Kurzweil’s hypothetical Singularity Theory has been the subject of popular debate since its

publication in his book The Singularity is Near in 2005. Based off of theories of exponential

acceleration of technological growth, Singularity Theory presupposes, “the union of human and

machine, in which the knowledge and skills embedded in our brains will be combined with the

vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge­sharing ability of our own creations.” This union, 6

Kurzweil believes, will entirely change human existence. As just a few examples, Kurzweil

believes that, in the not­so­distant future, death will no longer be a necessary occurrence and

physical bodily forms will not be needed for human minds to exist. The Singularity Theory is 7

considered by many to be radical and overly positive. Much of Kurzweil’s ideas lie in increased 8

attachment to digital technology and he presents a very strong techno­optimist perspective.

The philosopher Babette Babich, though not necessarily as extreme or publically visible

as Kurzweil or Musk, presents a techno­pessimist perspective and she has objections to the

positivity presented by optimists such as the aforementioned entrepreneurs. Her work is a nice

culmination of the thoughts of many techno­pessimists. In her paper “O, Superman! Or Being

Towards Transhumanism: Martin Heidegger, Gunther Ander, and Media Aesthetics,” Babich

discusses a number of issues related to increased technological integration with specific focus on

the previous work of many prominent philosophers. The author also wrestles directly with

Kurzweil’s assertions. Babich rejects Kurzweil’s singularity theory as unrealistic. She believes

Kurzweil underestimates many constraints and outside factors effecting the type of technological

6 "The Singularity Is Near, About the Book." Singularity.com. Accessed November 9, 2014. http://www.singularity.com/aboutthebook.html. 7 “The Singularity Is Near, About the Book" 8 David Nye, Technology Matters: Questions to Live With (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006) pg. 36

5

growth he posits. She also believes he overestimates the role which AI’s surpassing of human

intelligence plays in the full explanation of his theory. This is one of multiple examples of

Babich directly objecting to one form of techno­optimism.

In “O! Superhuman,” Babich refers significantly to Martin Heidegger and, in one

instance, points out his argument that technology has the consequence of, “turning all of nature

into so many varieties of stock needing only to be unlocked and extracted, transformed and

developed, especially the land that is today seen only in terms of gas, oil, minerals and so on.” 9

In the conclusion of her paper Babich posits a distinct separation between ‘digital engagement’

and ‘real life’, specifically in relation to social activism. She uses the example of her lack of

belief in the supposed social activism that is pressing the ‘like’ button on Facebook in support of

a cause. Based on conclusions derived from the work of Heidegger, Karl Marx, Max 10

Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and

Gunther Anders, Babich ultimately

believes technology imposes upon

fundamental freedoms in society. Taking 11

a point from Heidegger, she concludes

that, “Everywhere we remain powerlessly

chained to technology, whether we

passionately affirm or negate it.” 12

Babich’s concerns with technology

9 Babette Babich, “O, Superman! Or Being Towards Transhumanism: Martin Heidegger, Gunther Ander, and Media Aesthetics,” Essays (2013) 10 Babette Babich, “O, Superman! Or Being Towards Transhumanism,” pg. 83 11 Babette Babich, “O, Superman! Or Being Towards Transhumanism,” pg. 82 12 Babette Babich, “O, Superman! Or Being Towards Transhumanism,” pg. 82

6

represent a very detailed and understandable view of techno­pessimism, in relation to technology

in general as well as digital technology specifically.

The clever cartoon on the previous page pokes fun at complaints about technologies and

portrays conflict relating to them as having existed for many thousands of years, perhaps as long

as technologies have had a significant presence. So why do technologies often seem to be such 13

controversial topics? Historian of technology David Nye might say that this is because

technologies are social constructions and necessarily reflect their inventors, settings, and users’

attributes. For Nye, a variety of opinions, perspectives, and outlooks are embedded within 14

technologies. In response to this question, Nye might cite the technological controversy

embedded in the longstanding lack of recognition of technology’s gendered nature in society and

academia. As outlined in his book Technology Matters: Questions to Live With, Nye believes 15

technology is a storytelling device of sorts. His work presents a detailed overview of

technology’s place in history and many peoples’ perspectives of it. The author’s view of

technology relies on its manipulation by human society and its reciprocal place in social

structure:

“A tool always implies at least one small story. There is a situation; something needs

doing. Someone obtains or invents a tool in order to do it­a twisted coat hanger, for

example. And afterwards, when the car door is opened, there is a new situation.

Admittedly, this is not much of a narrative, taken in the abstract, but to conceive of a tool

is to think in time and imagine change.” 16

13 Aaron Saenz, "Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds" 14 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 40 15 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 14 16 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 5

7

For Nye, technology is an essential and inseparable part of human existence. Tech has been a

part of society since society’s birth. The two innately require each other for Nye. The author

laments the common misconception that technologies arise from application of scientific

knowledge. He argues that science came much later, after technology’s appearance, and can only

recently explain the phenomena occurring in technological processes. In Technology Matters 17

the author goes much further, however, and discusses what he believes is at the heart of some

much greater controversy involved with technology.

David Nye would argue that capitalists, futurists, technologists, and most

techno­optimists, view technology as deterministic. He is, as an important side­note, keen to

point out that, “Determinism is not limited to optimists. Between 1940 and 1975, some of the

most pessimistic critics of technology were also determinists.” A deterministic view says that 18

technology is its own entity with its own agency and that it dictates structure and process in

society. For a determinist, technologies exist in­and­of themselves. Nye argues that this is not in

fact the essence of technology, despite the fact that the deterministic conception is perhaps the

most commonly held. Most people view technology as separable from society and think that the

technologies they take for granted today were inevitable, that history was determined to spawn

them and that they have to exist. Nye says this commonly accepted determinism is often widely

held in free­market leaning societies. This shows parts of determinism to be based in people’s

essential opinions about how the world operates, an important side note for a full perspective of

technological controversy as a whole. The foundations of beliefs surrounding technology are

rooted in a variety of arguments, some coming value based opinions about what should be and

17 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 9 18 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 28

8

others from factual observational statements about what is. As will be discussed in greater detail

later on in this paper, the beliefs involved in technological controversies are multi­faceted.

Nye believes that most historians and technological analysts take either an internalist or

contextualist approach to explaining the history of technology. Many experts would argue that

technologies are not deterministic and that instead, “cultural choices shape their [technologies’]

use,” an argument based on analyses of, “inventions, the development, and market of individual 19

devices.” Nye believes that technology cannot be considered in any realm outside of its setting 20

in human cultures. He does, however, give some concession to Thomas Hughes’ concept of

‘technological momentum’, which allows, “large [technological] systems [to] exercise a “soft

determinism” once they are in place.” So certainly not all scholars of technology are opposed to 21

determinism entirely. Lack of agreement between scholars is clearly present in the general

attempt to understand and define technology. They do predominantly agree, however, that

technology is not deterministic.

Internalists look at technology from the perspective of the inventor. They, “establish a

bedrock of facts about individual inventors, their competition, their technical difficulties, and

their solutions to particular problems.” This analysis portrays technology as necessarily derived 22

from societal setting. The contextualist approach takes a broader look at society’s affecting role

in technology’s development. From this perspective, technology is shaped by large­scale factors,

such as markets. Nye says that, “A contextualist... tries to understand technologies from the point

of view of those who encountered them in a particular time and place.” The internalist and 23

19 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 21 20 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 31 21 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 55 22 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 56 23 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 61

9

contextualist approaches fundamentally disagree with deterministic views on the basis of how

technologies are formed and come to exist. The observation that that most historians are either

internalists or contextualists and that most lay­people are determinists about technology is an

example of one broad conflict between the general public and the experts on the matter. Even at

this point in the discussion, technology appears to be a particularly controversial subject in the

modern age.

This discussion of determinism vs. internalism vs. contextualism displays significant

controversy over definitions and understandings of technology. Use and application of

technology is an essentially related but somewhat separable discussion to the aforementioned. So

far what has been discussed mostly relates to ideas regarding how technology has come to exist

in the world and its role and place in society. This is a different discussion than one which is

related only to controversy over the effects of technology’s use and application. Ultimately, Nye

asserts that peoples’ definitions and fundamental understandings of technology are what underly

most modern discussions of the negative and positive factors of use involved with various

technologies. Nye believes a deterministic view of technology portrays issues related to it, such

as individual safety, global safety, or environmental impact as being somewhat outside of human

control. It is important to note that, due to his own definitions of technology, Nye would say that

these are problems not just related to technology, but necessarily also related to society. Human

capability to explain accidents, issues, and obstacles involved with technologies is a fairly

modern phenomenon and, in the nineteenth century, significant technological problems were

often pushed under the rug and considered, “inexplicable “acts of God”.” Only recently, with 24

24 David Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 162

10

significant scientific development, can people explain what is occurring in various issues

surrounding use of technologies. Nye believes that even today lack of knowledge or

understanding is a significant reason many people fear some technologies. This author’s

portrayal shows a very wide array of varying opinions and levels of understanding involved with

conversations about use of technologies. Perhaps, then, in response to our earlier question of,

why is technology so controversial, Nye would say that people have differing opinions on the

very basics of what makes up the concept of a technology.

Nye’s discussion shows that people look at technology from fundamentally different

perspectives. A full reading of Nye’s book displays a history of technology which is rife with

conflict and disagreement. Ultimately, Technology Matters gives significant perspective about

the broad controversy over techno­optimism versus techno­pessimism in much of the conflict’s

present form. Techno­optimism versus techno­pessimism on a total scale is an entirely massive

topic, the surface of which can only be scratched with limited space. The analysis of opinions

like Musks, Kurzweil’s, and Babich’s as well as Nye’s discussion of Determinism vs.

Internalism and Contextualism in this paper has served to give some setting to the more specific

controversy over increased attachment to digital technology.

Contemporary Conversations and Controversy Regarding Digital Technology

In the debate over digital technology, much of the discussion seems to surround some

version of the question, are we too plugged in to digital technology? Perhaps ironically, most of

the conversation in the public sphere is conducted via the internet. These discussions take place

on a global scale, and the selections as follow represent only a small portion of the results which

come up when one enters, are we too plugged in?, into a Google search. In the article “Growing

11

Up Digital, Wired for Distraction,” journalist Matt Richtel laid out a significant subject of

interest related to digital tech: young people, their education, and their future. Richtel says

research shows the lure of digital technologies to be much stronger for young people than for

adults and that, “developing brains can become more easily habituated than adult brains to

constantly switching tasks ­ and less able to sustain attention.” For Richtel, the controversy lies 25

with an apparent conflict between young people's tendencies and others’ expectations of them. In

the instance of questioning increased technological dependence in youth, the conflict exists in

the difference of one group’s (young people’s) tendencies to society’s current expectations.

When the group in context is the majority of young people in the first­world, the

controversy related to it is obviously of great importance, considering the future. Does the

conflict here point to a deficiency in today’s youth or to a changing society? Which side involved

in the discussion is supposed to change? Must today’s youth control their actions to fit the

structure of modern society in a conservative fashion? Or is society what must change to fit the

needs of tomorrow’s adult general population in a more progressive fashion? These are all

multi­faceted questions, with elements lying in value based opinions and factual scientific

claims. These are also questions which, in one form or another, are very central in the debate

over increased digital technological attachment outside of just consideration of youth.

Within the context of “Growing Up Digital,” educators have varying opinions about how

to tackle the problem of short attention spans in youth caused by increased attachment to digital

tech. Many teachers hope to embrace the new trend and change their own classrooms to meet the

25 Matt Richtel, Julie Scelfo, Tara Parker­Pope, and Marjorie Connelly. "Your Brain on Computers." The New York Times. July 7, 2010. Accessed October 10, 2014. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/features/timestopics/series/your_brain_on_computers/index.html

12

needs of students, “Across the country, schools are equipping themselves with computers,

internet access and mobile devices so they can teach on the students’ technological territory.” 26

Many adults involved with education sympathize with the students and believe their tendencies

for technological use have valid worth for education. Some teachers have gone so far as to

entirely reschedule their classes in order to fit what they perceived as the needs and motivations

of the students. They would argue that technological use is not inherently harmful for students 27

and can be a very positive learning tool. Some would oppose this idea, however, and say that,

though technology could be a quality learning tool, it is not always going to be used as such and

in fact provides more motivation to be used as a distraction device. As Richtel writes,

“Several recent studies show that young people tend to use home computers for

entertainment, not learning, and that this can hurt school performance, particularly in

low­income families. Jacob L. Vigdor, an economics professor at Duke University who

led some of the research, said that when adults were not supervising computer use,

children “are left to their own devices, and the impetus isn’t to do homework but play

around.”” 28

This suggests some sort of middle ground in this discussion between technologically ‘addicted’

kids and technologically resistant adults. One solution to the controversy presented here could be

to embrace some technological use while also controlling it for the sake of young people who

may not be able to see or control its full effects. One student was even quoted in the article as

wishing his parents would restrict his video game play time because he is incapable of stopping

26 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers” 27 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers” 28 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers”

13

himself, so controlling use of digital tech to at least some extent has arguments from both sides

involved in the controversy. “Still, he [the student] says, video games are not responsible for his

lack of focus, asserting that in another era he would have been distracted by TV or something

else,” this is an important note about his own opinions of the controversy. It seems this student 29

believes youth’s issues, such as distraction from homework, related to digital tech do not come

from the technologies and instead are parts of human society. Regardless, there are many

educators who believe that it is not possible to control use of digital tech and that schools which

utilize it only see their students’ success suffer.

“‘It’s a catastrophe,” said Alan Eaton, a charismatic Latin teacher. He says that

technology has led to a “balkanization of their focus and duration of stamina,” and that schools

make the problem worse when they adopt the technology.” It is a strong claim to call digital 30

tech’s presence in education ‘a catastrophe’, but perhaps not one which is entirely unfounded.

According to this article, some neuroscientists and other researchers have conducted scientific

research into the dilemma. They came up with inconclusive somewhat inconclusive results, but

an effect from digital technological use on brain activity was clearly seen, however,

“Markus Dworak, a researcher who led the study and is now a neuroscientist at Harvard,

said it was not clear whether the boys’ [participants in the study] learning suffered

because sleep was disrupted or, as he speculates, also because the intensity of the game

experience overrode the brain’s recording of the vocabulary.” 31

29 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers” 30 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers” 31 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers”

14

At least in this case, science has not conclusively defined the issues involved with this part of the

controversy, but research and results can be molded to give ammunition to either side of the

argument in many cases. In the instance of the discussion related technological distraction of

children, the evidence presented seems to support the techno­pessimist, at least to a minor extent.

The techno­optimists in this article, however, are confident in their convictions. One teacher

even went so far as to say that, “‘It’s in their DNA to look at screens.’” Strong claims, value 32

and fact based, are made on both sides of the controversy in this case.

In another article written by Matt Richtel titled Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed

Downtime, a different techno­pessimist perspective on digital tech is described. This article, the

one previously analyzed, and the following one to be looked at are all part of a seven article web

series published by the New York Times in 2010. The entire series is dedicated to articles 33

expressing mostly techno­pessimist opinions about digital technology from different

perspectives. The selections from the series made for analysis in this paper were done so in an

effort for a variety of different perspectives on the subject. The articles do entertain optimistic

opinions and therefore represent the modern controversy well. The spread of perspectives is wide

enough to display much of what makes this subject such a significant controversy.

Returning to the specific article “Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime,”

presents the argument for hesitation about increased attachment to digital technology in terms of

the actions of individuals of all ages and incorporates parts of the discussion from the previous

32 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers” 33 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/features/timestopics/series/your_brain_on_computers/index.html

15

article. This perspective discusses the side effects of constant distraction through digital tech

seen in brain activity on all individuals. Citing scientific research, the article claims,

“The technology makes the tiniest windows of time entertaining, and potentially

productive. But scientists point to an unanticipated side effect: when people keep their

brains busy with digital input, they are forfeiting downtime that could allow them to

better learn and remember information, or come up with new ideas.” 34

This discussion looks closely at studies done by the University of California, San Francisco. 35

Researchers conducted studies on rats and showed that time spent processing the information

they gained through observation and exploration was necessary for their cognitive growth and

mental expansion. This is a great example of a very factually based argument against increased

attachment to digital tech. The article goes on to say that many adults in the business world

might see decreasing success if they aren’t careful to take significant breaks from digital

technological use. This is a value based argument, about what the author believes what should

be, based on factual evidence. The controversy here gives a fairly basic argument and solution

with a broad scope of application.

The article titled “More Americans Sense a Downside to an Always Plugged­In

Existence,” written by journalist Marjorie Connelly, presents information gathered from

interviews with 855 adults. The interviewers asked a variety of questions relating to their 36

perception of distraction and lack of focus due to digital technology’s regular presence. The

34 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers” 35 Matt Richtel, “Your Brain on Computers” 36 Marjorie Connelly, "Your Brain on Computers"

16

study once again showed young people saw the most significant perceived effect, with 30% of

interviewees under the age of 45 reporting decrease in focus due to the presence of digital

technology. This is compared to less than 10% of adults over 45 who feel their focus is

diminished. This article makes a very elucidating remark:

“Some people can’t imagine living without their computers. About a third of those polled

said they couldn’t, while 65 percent said they either probably or definitely could get

along without their PCs. The people who are most computer­dependent tend to be better

educated and more affluent.” 37

This is interesting for multiple reasons. Firstly, the remark, ‘some people can’t imagine living

without their computers,’ directly mirrors some discussed by Nye in relation to the deterministic

belief that technologies must inherently exist. Secondly, the results of this question show that the

majority of people do not rely on digital technology entirely. This begs the question, does digital

tech only play the role of a luxury in the majority of people’s lives or are there some necessities

which technology provides that can be found through other means? These results could show that

society has been shaped around digital technology in a non­permanent fashion. Perhaps these

observations show that society has not yet reached a place where digital technology is totally

necessary for life today, but that, due to the 35% who said they need technology to live,

humanity is moving towards total necessitation of digital tech. That is at least, if

techno­pessimism does not abate the growth of digital technology and it continues on its current

path of growth. A third reason the remark this article makes is interesting is its note that those

who are more educated and affluent tend to necessitate digital technology to a greater extent.

37 Marjorie Connelly, "Your Brain on Computers"

17

This might suggest that, if education and affluence spreads, so does the requirement of digital

tech.

In his article “Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds,” journalist Aaron

Saenz analyzes some of the popular controversy over digital technology. He also provides his

own opinions on the subject. His presentation is a sort of mix of digital techno­optimism and 38

digital techno­pessimism, perhaps with a leaning toward optimism. He cites the previously

discussed New York Times web series as having significantly affected his initially totally

optimistic opinions toward digital tech. Saenz says that the arguments for restriction of digital 39

technological use as means of maximizing mental health made in the series of articles were very

convincing. He ends his discussion with significant techno­optimism, however, and describes a

popularly held opinion regarding this controversy:

“If we don’t learn how to interface properly with that new flow of content then we’ll end

up nervous wrecks – constantly waiting for the next email or poke or tweet, unable to

focus on our work or our personal lives. We could become people too distracted to

function.

Yet the other possibility is equally powerful: if we learn how to manage data well, we

could become enhanced beyond anything humans have ever experienced before. Imagine

a time when an answer, any answer, can be found in seconds no matter where you are.

Think of a time when you can interact with anything you own, or anyone you know, as

easily as you can speak. With smart phones we seem to be halfway there already. The

massive flow of data I’ve been discussing is a necessary byproduct of interconnectivity.

38 Aaron Saenz, "Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds" 39 Aaron Saenz, "Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds"

18

If we can manage the data well then we’ll be able to link humanity together in ways that

will increase productivity, understanding, and creativity.

Doing so means adjusting to the new onslaught of data. Right now the recipe for

adjusting is unclear but probably includes “eat well, exercise well, and relax often.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly that’s pretty much the recipe for longevity as well. As

neuroscientists explore the brain we may be able to better design the flow of data to

optimize our mental performance. We may find that productivity is maximized when we

check emails three times a day, when we only have four windows open on our screens at

once, or if we limit texting to times when we’re not driving. Until we have that precision

guiding our online behavior, it’s up to each of us to figure out how best to plug into

information technology. But take my advice: prioritize down time. Enhancing your mind

sometimes means knowing when to give it a break.” 40

This perspective displays a good amount of digital techno­pessimism while keeping a majority

digital techno­optimist opinion in check. From this perspective, the discussions displayed in the

New York Times web series don’t appear entirely pessimistic. Primarily, they seem to display

wariness and care in the face of the perceived inevitability of digital technology’s global

presence. The concept of technology's inevitability harkens back to the popularly held

deterministic beliefs about technology and its inevitability in general as posited by Nye, and

places the specific controversy over digital technology in context particularly well.

Returning to the cartoon discussed on page five of this paper, which was taken from

Saenz’s article, the complaints, interests, and ideas present in this controversy seem to mimic

much of what is present in the broad spectrum controversy of techno­optimism versus

techno­pessimism. The cartoon makes interesting commentary in its comparison of complaints

40 Aaron Saenz, "Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds"

19

related to the ‘bothersome’ distractions of technologies such as fire and modern digital tech. If

one looked perhaps at people’s initial complaints regarding something a bit more modernly

essential such as the telephone and compared those to modern day complaints about digital

technology Saenz’s point appears even more convincing. Will humanity look back upon

complaints about digital tech’s effect on society in the same way one might now humorously

look back upon hypothetical complaints about the telephone’s effect in society? A Kuhnian

perspective would likely say that, in a future paradigm, people will indeed think about today’s

issues with a mark of humor.

Returning to the work of David Nye,Technology Mattershas significant commentary on

the controversy over digital tech at the end of his book. In the structure Nye has laid out, the

controversy over digital tech is at the forefront of discussion over techno­optimism and

techno­pessimism. Putting discussion of digital technology at the end of broad spectrum

discussion of technological perception throughout history displays digital tech as perhaps the

most important reason that technology matters at the moment in Nye’s opinion. To explain how

digital technology fits into his story, Nye discusses the difference between engagement with

things and use of things. He says that engagement requires conscious knowledge and

understanding of the concepts at hand regarding digital technology's operational processes and

that the use of things does not involve grasping the functions of the device or object being used. 41

Nye goes on to say that, as computers become normalized in more and more complex ways, the

ability for engagement with them is quickly being lost. Today, he claims, people use computers

without a second thought to the technology’s construction and operation and that this blind

41 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 200

20

action ignores significant potential consequences. His concerns with increased attachment to 42

digital technology surround the question, “If a web of controlling technical processes and devices

defines ‘normality,’ and if this web becomes more complex with each new generation, can

mankind depart too far from nature?” 43

Nye believes that many people find it easy to accept the normalization of use of digital

technology. Many people are comforted by digital tech’s increasing presence and find the idea of

it’s progression enticing, they don’t believe accepting general use of digital technology causes

mankind to ‘depart too far from nature,’ or if they do, they do not have an issue with their

removal from a more natural life. According to Nye, some digital techno­optimists envision such

a rapid advancement of digital technology that the ways in which humans interact with their

environment will entirely change. Some, “‘expect a redistribution of values previously

sedimented in the senses of hearing, vision, taste, touch, and smell,’” and welcome the

progression of digital technology openly for the opportunities to explore entirely new

experiences. On the other hand, Nye says others, “oscillate between embracing its [digital tech’s]

conveniences, even wallowing in its pleasures and fleeing its sensory overload or rejecting its

inauthenticity.” Nye also discusses worries similar to those related to Babette Babich about 44

humanity regarding nature as purely a commodity to be used for human advantage. The author 45

looks at extreme cases of digital techno­optimism, such as parts of Kurzweil’s singularity theory,

as well as others. He gives a good explanatory summary of some of these views: some, such as

Kurzweil, claim that, “future people will not be limited by their physical selves or by the

42 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 203 43 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 201 44 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 207 45 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 214

21

hardware inherited from the past. Rather, he argues, eventually people will exist in their

software, and they will migrate to new sites and expand their capabilities as computers become

smaller and more powerful,” others go so far as to claim a future of radio telepathy involving 46

mutual global experience and subsequent collective consciousness. Ultimately, Nye dismisses 47

such fanciful propositions because he does not believe there is any singular path humanity and

technology are destined to follow. The author’s central argument in Technology Matters 48

appears on the final page:

“We are not necessarily evolving toward a single world culture, nor must we become

subservient to (or extinct in favor of) intelligent machines. For millennia we have used

technologies to create new possibilities. This is not an automatic process; it can lead

either to greater differentiation or increasing homogeneity. We need to consider the

questions that technology raises because we have many possible futures, some far less

attractive than others.” “By refusing to let any ensemble of objects define our world as

already given, we can continue to choose how technology matters.” 49

Nye’s statement is classically neutral for an STS scholar in terms of his opinion on the matter. It

portrays controversy over technology as having no right or wrong answers to problems, just

solutions and technologies which might turn out better than others. Though his thesis does not

divolve a techno­optimist or techno­pessimist opinion in particular, Nye’s general tone

throughout the book reflects the sort of mix of digital techno­pessimism and digital

techno­optimism portrayed in previous opinions on the subject. In general, it seems he is

46 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 223 47 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 223­224 48 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 226 49 Nye, Technology Matters, pg. 226

22

somewhat wary of increased attachment to digital technology, but optimistic about its variety of

potential futures.

Externalism about Mental Content and Active Externalism

The controversy over digital technology as of yet culminates in arguments over value

based opinions about what ought to be regarding the progression of digital technology being

defended by factual and scientific arguments about digital tech’s effects and influences in

society. What is at stake are core concepts of peoples’ understandings of the world they live in.

The outcomes of this controversy will significantly affect the ways in which people live their

lives because the future of digital technology will inevitably alter our constitution as societal

beings in some way. If contextualism and/or internalism are right, as Nye claims, and society

designs and necessitates technology, then ideas, concepts, beliefs, mental states, thoughts, ie.

what makes up the positions individuals, groups, and nations take in global societal structure, are

all changing and being effected in a reciprocal relationship with technology. This relationship

requires mental states to be designed and effected by external factors. Epistemologically, this

equates to the theory of externalism. In the philosophical study of epistemology, there exists

controversy between two schools of thought; Externalism and Internalism. The conflict is broad

and involves many sub­schools of thought and a variety of theories. The Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy gives a good general description of the controversy:

“Externalism with regard to mental content says that in order to have certain types of

intentional mental states (e.g. beliefs), it is necessary to be related to the environment in

23

the right way. Internalism (or individualism) denies this, and it affirms that having those

intentional mental states depends solely on our intrinsic properties.” 50

Controversy over externalism and internalism within the field of philosophy is vast. Some

theories involved in the discussion have significant commentary on digital technology. Much of

the controversy over digital technology relates significantly to mental states. Conflict over

effects and changes in human minds seem to be at the heart of the discussion of the question, Are

we too plugged in? Ideas relating to mental states, in this case from the realm of philosophy of

mind, discuss concepts significant to analysis of the current controversy over digital technology.

This perspective presents some elucidating concepts in the quest for understanding why

technology, and digital technology specifically, has such a significant impact on human minds

and societal existence. One particular theory discussing mental states and their interaction to

technology is Andy Clark’s Active Externalism. This idea is a subset of epistemological

externalism and it posits technology’s direct role in the formation of mental states and minds.

Clark’s work in philosophy of mind may not be specifically focused on digital

technology, but his ideas and their implications have are significantly related to the current

debate. In the forward written by David Chalmers in Clark’s book Supersizing the Mind:

Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension, the connection between and active externalism

and digital technology is discussed. On the first page of Chalmers’ forward, he discusses his

ownership of an iPhone and many of its advantages in his life. He then says, “Friends joke that I

should get the iPhone implanted into my brain. But if Andy Clark is right, all this would do is

speed up the processing and free up my hands. The iPhone is part of my mind already.” Clark 51

50 Joe Lau, "Externalism About Mental Content" 51 Andy Clark, Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008)

24

and Chalmers’ well­known paper The Extended Mind is attributed with the first fully elaborated

and explicit defense of active externalism in contemporary philosophy. Today, Clark’s book, 52

Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension would likely be considered

the foremost opinion on active externalist theory.

Within the paper, The Extended Mind multiple thought experiments elucidate the innate

connection between a mind and the active external elements with which it may interact. One

thought experiment discusses an Alzheimer’s patient who must consult a book of information

which he has collected in order to answer various questions about his life and environment. The

experiment intends to show that his ability to access information from the book is no different

than that of a person with a fully functioning brain using his or her memory. For example, a

woman of sound mental health is asked a location by a random stranger on the street and, after a

moment of thought, responds with an address. The Alzheimer’s patient is asked the same

question by another stranger and, after a moment of checking his book, responds with the same

answer as the woman. In short, Clark and Chalmers come to the conclusion that the man’s book

is in fact also a part of his mind, as he necessarily requires it to produce information. If one

agrees with Clark and Chalmers’ conclusions and then if the book in this scenario is replaced

with a smartphone, huge implications arise from this theory. With access to the wealth of

information available on the internet directly in one’s own pocket, a vast amount of humanity’s

knowledge is a mobile part of one’s mind under assumptions of active externalism. A basic

understanding of active externalism presents a foundational perspective on the importance of

asking the types of questions which are discussed in this essay.

52 Andy Clark and David Chalmers, “The Extended Mind,” Oxford University Press, 1998. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150

25

Defenses of active externalism can be found in the fields of cognitive science and

psychology. Thomas Metzinger is a German philosopher who has focused most of his research

on consciousness studies. In his book The Ego Tunnel: the Science of the Mind and the Myth of

the Self, Metzinger gives an overview of consciousness studies up until the book was written in

2008. The Ego Tunnel discusses the currently accepted norms in consciousness studies and

explains the arguments behind them. A good portion of his book is dedicated to exhibiting the

extended nature of consciousness. The extension of one’s body through tools one uses may seem

obvious in the observation of a skilled user. For example, “Race­car drivers can expand it [their

bodies] to include the boundaries of the car; they do not have to judge visually they can squeeze

through a narrow opening or avoid an obstacle­they simply feel it.” Metzinger uses some 53

arguments from cognitive science and psychology to understand the relationship of the brain and

the outside world. He discusses how, in interaction with digital technology and virtual worlds,

humans treat things like a mouse cursor or an online avatar as extensions of themselves. 54

Metzinger’s work presents a summation of many different opinions which support, at least to

some extent, externalism and specifically theories like active externalism. Clark’s theory is fairly

reminiscent of Nye’s contextualism and internalism. The relationship between technology and

society, more specifically human minds, is shown to be necessarily reciprocal in all of these

theories. Contextualism, Internalism, and Active Externalism all involve human, technologies,

and society forming and progressing together in necessary relationship. Though Clark’s ideas are

not exclusively focused on technology, they have many insights and vast explanations about

53 Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, pg. 5 54 Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, pg. 81

26

much of the relationship between humans and technology. Metzinger’s discussion gives value

based and factually derived weight to active externalism.

Conclusion

Ideas, conversations, and controversies over digital technology extends into many facets

of society. The opinions of the writers and scholars discussed here are part of a continually

changing and updating debate which shows no sign of nearing closure considering the

exponentially growing nature of technology. There are multiple other areas of the controversy

into which a researcher could delve in order to further analyze the conflict at hand. In truth, one

or multiple books could be written on the subject. Hopefully more steps toward understanding

the essential elements of increasing human engagement with digital technology will continue to

be taken as humanity, deterministically or nondeterministically, progresses on a path toward

significant integration with digital tech.

Works Cited

Joe Lau, "Externalism About Mental Content," Stanford University. October 21, 2002.

Accessed September 14, 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content­externalism/.

Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

(New York: Basic Books, 2009)

Duncan Pritchard, review of Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism,

Foundations vs. Virtues, by Laurence BonJour and Ernest Sosa, Mind, New Series, Vol. 113, No.

450 (April, 2004), pp. 319­322 Oxford University Press http://www.jstor.org/stable/3489136

27

Andy Clark and David Chalmers, “The Extended Mind,” Oxford University Press, 1998.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150

Andy Clark, Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension (New

York: Oxford University Press, 2008)

Ross Andersen, "The Elon Musk Interview on Mars Colonisation." Aeon Magazine.

September 30, 2014. Accessed October 6, 2014.

http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/the­elon­musk­interview­on­mars/.

Babette Babich, “O, Superman! Or Being Towards Transhumanism: Martin Heidegger,

Gunther Ander, and Media Aesthetics,” Essays (2013)

https://www.academia.edu/4443176/O_Superman_or_Being_Towards_Transhumanism_Martin_

Heidegger_G%C3%BCnther_Anders_and_Media_Aesthetics

David Nye, Technology Matters: Questions to Live With (Massachusetts: MIT Press,

2006)

Matt Richtel, Julie Scelfo, Tara Parker­Pope, and Marjorie Connelly. "Your Brain on

Computers." The New York Times. July 7, 2010. Accessed October 10, 2014.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/features/timestopics/series/your_brain_on_computers/index.html

Aaron Saenz, "Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds," Singularity

Hub. August 26, 2010. Accessed October 10, 2014.

http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/26/are­we­too­plugged­in­distracted­vs­enhanced­minds/.

"Sui Genocide." The Economist. December 17, 1998. Accessed November 7, 2014.

http://www.economist.com/node/179963.

28

"The Singularity Is Near, About the Book." Singularity.com. Accessed November 9,

2014. http://www.singularity.com/aboutthebook.html.

Andrew Weil, "Curiosity: Andrew Weil: Are We Too Plugged in to Technology? :

Video: Discovery Channel." Discovery Channel. 2014. Accessed October 13, 2014.

http://www.discovery.com/tv­shows/curiosity/topics/andrew­weil­are­we­too­plugged­in­to­tech

nology.htm.

Cynthia L. Selfe, “The Humanization of Computers: Forget Technology, Remember

Literacy,” The English Journal, Vol. 77, No. 6 (Oct., 1988), pp. 69­71, National Council of

Teachers of English

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/818623?uid=3739960&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4

&uid=3739256&sid=21104688710973

Robert E. Kraut, Paul Resnick, Sara Kiesler, Moira Burke, Yan Chen, Niki Kittur, Joseph

Konstan, Yuqing Ren, John Riedl, Building Successful Online Communities, March 2012,

The MIT Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhgvw

Judith Donath, “Virtually Trustworthy,” Science, New Series, Vol. 317, No. 5834 (Jul. 6,

2007), pp. 53­54 American Association for the Advancement of Science,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20036627