Summary: Week 8
I began week eight by asking the question, are we already posthuman (lifestream: 07.11.2011, #1)? In many ways, we depend on tools like a mobile phone as a type of cognitive prosthesis, an extra layer of memory which grants us an increased ability or processing power than our (basic?) organic minds could otherwise achieve. I revisited Andy Clark and David Chambers fascinating paper The Extended Mind (lifestream: 08.11.2011 #7) in which they argue that external content could be viewed as a modifier to consciousness. The speed of retrieval for such information is usually offered as a counter argument to the point, however, one could certainly make the claim that if our consciousness is constructed and based on available stimuli, then the tools, connections and web services which we rely on to aid decision making are in fact part of a single suite – we already have a distributed consciousness. Indeed social constructionists would argue that much of our awareness of reality is defined by our interactions with others; thus making all cognition distributed to some degree. If this is true, then although digital tools are a new chapter in the story of human development, they continue the same theme and merely allow the same processes to take place at a more efficient and optimized pace. The caviat here of course is the danger of disconnection from these tools when we have come to rely on them. If we are unable to act independly, relying too much on external data streams for decision making, then loss of connection will result in a system crash, an unrecoverable input error disrupting our ability to function effectively. I am reminded of the protagonist character Manfred Macx in Chalres Stross’ spectacular transhumanist series, Accelerando (lifestream: 13.11.2011 #1). Maxc is reliant almost entirely on a pair of data glasses that feeds him with a continual data stream. After the loss of the glasses he loses much of his identity and wanders aimlessly trying to find a backup of his data/personality.
Much of the remainder of this week as been spent ploughing though the readings and cyborg concepts. I’ve added some new feeds to my lifestream and watched it fill out considerably. The readings this week are challenging and I am still coming to terms with much of the material. More to come on this in another post.

Its great to see a discussions of ‘cognitive prosthesis’ and distributed cognition emerging Daniel. Where you bring in the example of mobile phones and memory, I was reminded of Viktor Mayer-Schönberger’s book ‘Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age’ (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8981.html), which warns against the excesses of an unrelenting digital memory.
You might also find this paper interesting, which combines a kind of distributed cognition perspective with the posthuman:
Yakhlef, A. (2008). Towards a post-human distributed cognition environment.
Knowledge Management Research and Practice 6. pp. 287-297.
http://www.esc-pau.fr/documents/cahiers%20recherche%2008/cahier-10-art3.pdf
Your post also reminded me, in some ways, of the ‘multimodal’ and ‘transliteracy’ discussions in weeks 3 and 4. Language, and signification systems in general, are often given much emphasis in discussions of prosthesis, being considered a technology that has radically enhanced our cognitive abilities. Would you consider language a technology?
Cheers Jeremy,
Your comments always prompt me to pause and consider my thoughts more deeply, thanks!!! Thanks also for the link, interesting stuff. And a great question. Certainly I’d agree (with Chomsky and many others) that language is the primary medium which allowed intelligence, culture and organisation (and therefore distributed cognition) to evolve, so in that sense it is a very real tool.
Media theory tells us that meaning is constructed in the mind of the receiver; so we could claim therefore that natural language can be an inaccurate communication tool. But there are many types of languages. As a web developer, I use a variety of different languages (as tools) every day. Symbolic languages (be they code or otherwise) can allow for far greater precision of expression and therefore accurate sharing of meaning or semantics. Its interesting to think how this sharpening of precision might be affecting us individually, and it has obvious consequences for humanity as a whole. Much to think about as always, thanks Jeremy!