I'm here at the Gazebo leaning on a railing. I've just finished walking around the lake and just leaning here looking at the water is nice. I guess it's more like a pond than a lake but that's alright. Nobody is around me or near me. All that I see around is a lot pollen floating on the water, along with flower petals, the occasional twig or branch, and a few water fowl. I heard a fish jump a little while ago but was too slow to actually catch a glimpse of it.
I've always enjoyed just sitting outside, not really doing much of anything. Most of the time that has been done on my porch but it's especially nice when it happens to be on the water. The only thing that could possibly make this better would be for there to be some ladies tanning, but the location that I have chosen does not lend itself to that activity. Neither does the lack of sun. Actually, a fishing pole would be nice now too but I, unfortunately, do not have that either.
Still there's something special about watching the ducks dive down under the water, the partially domesticated squirrels search for nuts, and the obstinate geese attack small children. Still, it's not just that but also smelling the pollen and the flowers that are so abundant, feeling the warm breeze on your face as look across the water over at beautiful brick buildings, and hearing nothing but nature at work.
All of these things are happening at once, so many senses are engaged simultaneously. It's invigorating. That's the difference between this reality and the virtual. The Internet engages at most two senses, hearing and sight. Reality can incorporate all five of them. If I only had a sweet tea I could be experiencing all five right now.
As for the FYS class for which this is being written I have enjoyed the majority of the class. The only thing that I have disliked talking about is virtual worlds. I, personally, do not have that much stake in virtual worlds nor do they interest me to a great extent. Talking about the impact of technology on people and the world is very interesting to me, not only because I enjoy what new technologies offer but I also find it intriguing how they change us as people. When I think of technology I think of it being a tool to be used. We use the tool to change other things that may, or may not, affect us. The tool itself does not change us, the product does. However, technology, such as the Internet, seems to be breaking the mold changing the way that we operate and act not necessarily by what it produces but just because of what it is. A hammer could not do that. All in all we discussed many things in the class, some were more interesting to me than others but overall I enjoyed the class.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Sacrifice for Happiness
In Exodus to the Virtual World Edward Castronova illustrates the difference between a want and a like.
"A 'want' is a craving, a feeling that, if only you could expose yourself to this particular sensation, you would feel pleasure. A 'like' is just plain happiness, a feeling being experienced that has the pleasure gloss on it."
Later Castronova explains the delicate balance that must be achieved by game designers in order to make a game desirable to play. He says that people need to have goals that they will try to achieve. These goals should be fun to proceed through and finally accomplish. Happiness is found in doing the task needed to accomplish the goal as well as in the completion of that goal. If the goal is too easy, or to difficult, to accomplish then the person will not like it and lose interest in doing it.
To illustrate this Castronova uses many examples, one being that of a player progressing through a game and their wish to, "advance more quickly through the game, but if that wish is granted, the player will not like the result." Another example is that of a man trying to buy a car with winning that he earns from playing the stock market. The more money he earns the happier he gets. However, if the car is given to him (note the word given) from an entity, Castronova uses the government, then he will not be as happy or as satisfied because his goal would have been accomplished but not by his own actions or through him earning it.
I have never really thought about this in detail but now that I have read a little bit of it it makes complete sense. There was one game that I played for hours and hours, progressing very slowly but enjoying the game the entire time. Once I learned that cheats were available for it I quickly used them to attain the highest levels and most powerful gear, but after I had done that I only played for a little while longer. Even though I never actually beat the game the fun was taken out of it because I had already accomplished almost everything without having to do anything for it. All of the goals were met, yet I got little enjoyment out of it so I began to dislike playing, and so the game ended for me.
It's interesting to see how you can accomplish something that you want to do but that does not necessarily mean that you will like the outcome, or the feeling that comes with it. Maybe what makes things worthwhile, and in a sense fun and enjoyable, is the sacrifice that it takes to accomplish it. In a way, it's almost like by giving up a little part of yourself for something, that thing becomes a little part of you and therefore you enjoy it more.
"A 'want' is a craving, a feeling that, if only you could expose yourself to this particular sensation, you would feel pleasure. A 'like' is just plain happiness, a feeling being experienced that has the pleasure gloss on it."
Later Castronova explains the delicate balance that must be achieved by game designers in order to make a game desirable to play. He says that people need to have goals that they will try to achieve. These goals should be fun to proceed through and finally accomplish. Happiness is found in doing the task needed to accomplish the goal as well as in the completion of that goal. If the goal is too easy, or to difficult, to accomplish then the person will not like it and lose interest in doing it.
To illustrate this Castronova uses many examples, one being that of a player progressing through a game and their wish to, "advance more quickly through the game, but if that wish is granted, the player will not like the result." Another example is that of a man trying to buy a car with winning that he earns from playing the stock market. The more money he earns the happier he gets. However, if the car is given to him (note the word given) from an entity, Castronova uses the government, then he will not be as happy or as satisfied because his goal would have been accomplished but not by his own actions or through him earning it.
I have never really thought about this in detail but now that I have read a little bit of it it makes complete sense. There was one game that I played for hours and hours, progressing very slowly but enjoying the game the entire time. Once I learned that cheats were available for it I quickly used them to attain the highest levels and most powerful gear, but after I had done that I only played for a little while longer. Even though I never actually beat the game the fun was taken out of it because I had already accomplished almost everything without having to do anything for it. All of the goals were met, yet I got little enjoyment out of it so I began to dislike playing, and so the game ended for me.
It's interesting to see how you can accomplish something that you want to do but that does not necessarily mean that you will like the outcome, or the feeling that comes with it. Maybe what makes things worthwhile, and in a sense fun and enjoyable, is the sacrifice that it takes to accomplish it. In a way, it's almost like by giving up a little part of yourself for something, that thing becomes a little part of you and therefore you enjoy it more.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Project 3 Final Draft: Memory vs. The Internet
Over the past two decades the Internet has grown exponentially, and so has its usage. Today the Internet is used for almost everything; games, news, information, socializing, and even business. The question really isn’t what can you do with the Internet, but what can’t you do with it? Now with Internet browsing speeds increasing to where huge quantities of information can be accessed within seconds and with the wide availability of the Internet, it is hard not to be in, seemingly, constant contact with it. No doubt, having constant access to infinite amounts of information at, literally, the touch of a button is extremely beneficial, especially in a world where time is an extremely precious commodity, but is the Internet really so benevolent? Could it be that with the emergence of the Internet, with its inherent ability to store and allow access to information, what we once used to rely on for information recall, our memory, is slowly becoming less needed and, therefore, losing its ability to store information?
One of the primary functions of the Internet is storing and sharing large amounts of information which is very similar to our memory. Almost any kind of information can be stored on the Internet and then accessed by multiple millions, if not billions, of people. One needs only to type in a query to Google and see the staggering size of the number of related links to that search to realize this. Josh Catone's blog, "The Staggering Size of the Internet", states that there were approximately 255 million websites on the Internet as of Dec. 2010 and 21.4 million new websites in 2010 (Catone). Not only is there an unimaginable amount of information out there but the sheer number of people accessing and creating that much information is impressive as well, an estimated 2 billion internet users. This means that, since the U.S. census estimates the world population at around 6.9 billion people, roughly 29% of the world uses the Internet ("U.S. and World Population Clock").
Our ability to remember information has always been of extreme importance. For example, what is the point of, many, tests but to assess a person’s ability to learn, recall, and evaluate information? However, for something that is an inherent ability unto all of us, few people actually understand what memory is. Kenneth Higbee claims that memory is, “merely an abstraction that refers to a process rather than a structure… [or] as a tangible thing” (Higbee, 2). This is rather important to understand because it suggests that memory is more like a habit than an actually part of the body. People do not have habits of an object but rather of processes. As the old saying goes “old habits are hard to break,” and if the process of remembering information is a habit it is certainly one of the oldest that we have.
 |
| Artistic Depiction of Memory |
Well, if memory is a process then how does it work? This topic is still not completely understood by science but there is a general theory of how it takes place. First the brain encodes information through electrical signals and chemicals. Richard Mohs explains that, “[n]erve cells connect with other cells at a point called a synapse…Each brain cell can form thousands of links like this, giving the brain about 100 trillion synapses” (Mohs, 2). With repetition and practice these connections are strengthened and the brain reorganizes itself to take into account new experiences, reinforcing the knowledge and memory. However, if a person does not reinforce the memory the brain will reorganize itself and the old connections will slowly fade away. Retrieving the information is the next step that takes place in the process. This “simply” happens when the same connections are made as when an experience was encoded. Mohs claims that when something cannot be remembered it is attributed to one, or a combination, or three things; registry, retention, and retrieval of the experience. If the information wasn’t registered correctly, the connections were lost due to extended periods of time without being used, or there was a, “mismatch between retrieval cues and the encoding of the information,” the memory may be hard, or impossible, to retrieve (Mohs, 4).
If, however, everything takes place as it should in the process of memory an invaluable and all-important action has been accomplished. Almost everything that we do is based on past experience and learned information therefore being able to perform the action of memory well is extremely important. For instance, a test is generally used to measure how well someone has learned a particular subject and since learning is nothing more than the brain making synapses in the memory process a test is truly measuring someone’s memory function, along with their reasoning skills. To an extent, everything that we do requires memory, from remembering people to tying shoes and even walking and talking. Can then the brain remember too much information and clog the inner workings of the mind to the point where it cannot function properly? It seems that this is not the case because, apart from the storage of memory being “virtually unlimited,” the very process of remembering more information, as implied by Higbee, “may actually help memory” (Higbee, 13). This is significant because it shows that as memory is used it builds upon itself, possibly because the brain finds quicker and simpler routes of storing information.
Not only can 29% of the world’s population use the Internet, but the modes that they can use to access all of that information makes it extremely easy and fast to do so. For example, many phones on the market today, such as the very popular iPhone and Droid, give almost complete access to the Internet from anywhere that they can get a signal. By taking a look at the map of the United States on CellFanatic.com it can clearly be seen that the majority of the United States has access to the Internet, via phones. Also, the speed at which the Internet can be accessed and information can be gathered is also impressive, with AT&T’s network giving a range of download speeds ranging from “700kbps to 1.7Mbps” (Marshall). This means that at a premium a phone capable of accessing the Internet on AT&T’s service could download approximately 6.9 seconds of music, or “a text file with 1,048,576 characters” every second (WikiAnswers).
At this stage it would seem as if the Internet and the human memory have a lot of things in common. For one, both allow for the storage and access of huge amounts of information at incredible speeds. While the memory is still, at this point, easier to access and use, due to its close physical relationship to the human mind, the Internet is not at all awkward to access and can be used with simply the touch of a button. In some ways the Internet and the memory are even similar in their structure. Take, for instance, memory, which is a process of neurons interacting and connecting via electrical signals at points called synapses. This is very similar to the Internet, servers that store information that are connected, via wires, to other servers which all communicate through electrical signals.
This does not mean that there are not differences however. For example, the Internet is a compilation of the knowledge of billions of people, while the human memory relies on the knowledge and experiences of only one. This, most importantly, means that the Internet has a vastly superior amount of information stored within it. Also, Ralph Merkel asserts that the brain can, at most, perform 10^16 operations per second while the most advanced computer processor to date can perform “159,000 [million instructions per second]” or roughly 10^12 operations per second (Merkel/Wikipedia). This means that human memory is faster in overall processing speed compared to the Internet, and this does not even take into consideration the proximity of the memory to the actual human mind. By this it is meant that while because the mind and the memory are, by most standards, the same thing they can work in unison at the same speed. However, because the Internet can, at this point, only be accessed by physical means, a human typing for instance, the process of using the Internet is slowed down because a human cannot move as fast as it can think.
 |
| The Internet - a series of tubes |
Despite these present inadequacies, it is a fact that the Internet will continue to grow bigger, faster, and more accessible so can, or will, this have an effect on the human need for memory? When Socrates proclaimed that, “this invention…will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn it, by causing them to neglect their memory,” he may have been discussing the ability to write but this also would seem to relate to the Internet just as well (Wright, 104). For instance, why would someone remember their best friend’s birthday if the Internet website sensation Facebook reminds them? In theory it would not stop there. Since the Internet holds such an enormous amount of information all that someone needs to do to access it is type in a search query and go from there, and the need to remember information is suddenly gone. The only thing that keeps this from happening is the separation that is between the Internet and the human mind. Because the two cannot interact directly with one another memory will be needed to some extent. However, this does not mean that the Internet has not affected the human memory as of yet. As Caygill points out, “the Internet seem[s] to promise a new art of memory in which knowledge as technological invention replaces knowledge as recollection” (Caygill, 2). This suggests that memory is no longer as necessary for the brain to carry out because technology, computers and the Internet, is carry out that function. If memory were to become almost solely a process completed by technology, rather than biology, this would possibly leave the human brain liberated to focus on other functions like critical thinking and understanding information, as opposed to memorizing. This can be demonstrated with an example of a person driving and talking on phone, with the driver being an analogy for the brain. While doing the tasks simultaneously both the ability to drive and communicate suffer. Yet if just one function is carried out, with full attention going to that specific task, then it can be performed much better.
 |
| Biology vs. Technology |
However, it is possible that the Internet could actually aid memory, and not replace it. By allowing for the repeated and continual experience of reading, or seeing, something the memory process could be improved. This would be possible by allowing the brain to make more connections between different parts of the brain, reinforcing the experience and increasing the retention. For example, by searching the Pythagorean Theorem in Google a myriad of site links come up displaying information in the forms of video, pictures, and script. By accessing all of these together it is more likely that the brain will make a connection visually and audibly, thereby increasing the likelihood of learning the concept.
As seen by the average SAT scores posted on InfoPlease.com the data is mixed. While the Verbal Score Totals seem to have fallen slightly since 1972 the Mathematical Score Totals have actually risen slightly. Based on Sven Birkerts theory that “complexity and distinctiveness of verbal and written communication, which are deeply bound to traditions of print literacy, will gradually be replaced by a more telegraphic sort of ‘plainspeak’” due to the Internet would seem to correspond with this data (Birkerts). Perhaps with the Internet’s availability and the popularity of sites like SparkNotes Birkert’s vision of curricula becoming “streamlined and simplified” as well as the more difficult books being cut down in order to more simply transfer the information is, or has, come true. By streamlining information in this way the brain no longer needs to think critically about what is being processed, an affect that Birkerts was extremely concerned about. For instance, the reader no longer has to read for content and understanding because the more simple reading is focused solely on delivering those two aspects, on a silver platter. There is no effort involved. This seems to be in conflict with Caygill’s theory that the reader will be freer to think critically about a reading because their brain will be more able to perform that function without the necessity to also store information in the form of memory.
With the invention and advance of the Internet information has been able to more freely be transferred among individuals. An extremely high capacity to store information, ease of access, and astounding speed have all made this technology an integral part of the present but despite fears of this causing a recession in the development and usage of the human memory it is hard to make a concrete conclusion either for the Internet or against it. On one hand, it is possible that the Internet can actually benefit memory. This is possibly because there are so many different types of information by storing the information, is reinforced faster and with more strength. This means that the information can be retained for a longer period of time. On the other hand, the Internet may be more detrimental to the human memory. The reasoning behind this claim lies in the fact that the human memory and the Internet both serve very closely related functions of storing and retrieving information. Usually when two things so closely overlap each other’s functions the dominant one takes over and the other is forgotten. However, little evidence has been found to support this idea. Although scores on the reading section of the SAT seem to have fallen over the last three decades the math scores have actually increased. While the first bit of data would seem to indicate proof that memory, along with possibly language, has degraded slightly over the generations the last part cannot be simply looked over. So, at this point it remains to be seen whether the Internet is harmful, or beneficial, for the memory but one should always keep in mind just how closely related the two are. Often when two things are as closely related as the Internet and memory, in terms of function, it is almost impossible to have them not affect each other.
Works Cited
"Answers.com - How big is 1mb." WikiAnswers - The Q&A wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_big_is_1mb>.
"Average SAT Scores, 1972–2007 — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. — Infoplease.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html>.
Birkerts, Sven. "Boston Review." Boston Review — Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR16.5/birkerts.html>.
Catone, Josh. "The Staggering Size of the Internet." Mashable. Mashable Inc., 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <mashable.com/2011/01/25/internet-size-infographic/>.
Caygill, Howard. "Meno and the Internet: between memory and the archive ." History of the Human Sciences . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/12/2/1.full.pdf+html>.
Higbee, Kenneth L. "Your Memory: How It Works and How to ... - Google Books." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3ckdjo7>.
"Instructions per second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second>.
Marshall, Nick. "At&t HSPA 3g network complete, mission accomplished!." Cellfanatic – Cell phone, mobile phone, wireless network news. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.cellfanatic.com/2008/06/04/att-hspa-3g-network-complete-mission-accomplished/>.
Merkel, Ralph. "Brain limits." Ralph Merkle's Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html>.
Mohs, Richard C. "Discovery Health "Memory Retrieval"." Discovery Health "Health Guides". Publications International, Ltd., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/human-memory3.htm>.
Wright, J.. "The Phaedrus, Lysis, and Protagoras ... - Google Books." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3fwzllk>.
"U.S. & World Population Clock." Census Bureau Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Project 4: Gone Too Long
The first of the corporations was founded in the mid 1900’s. It started by using resources found in Earth like silicon and rare metals to make products. It grew powerful, along with others, until the resources grew scarce and the companies fought amongst themselves. Eventually, it consolidated itself, cornering the market in its chosen field and ingraining itself in economy.
At the end of the 21st century there were only five companies in the entire world. They produced everything that was needed for life and the less necessary necessities. They were so vital for the health of the world civilization that any thought by governments to “bust” them were thrown out. They were too important.
They created the first, and only, Artificial Intelligences, computers designed to know all and adapt with time to do anything allowing the corporations to stay ahead of the market. All other technology was in some way connected with one of the corporations, and an AI.
Around 2130 Earth became inhospitable for humans. The corporations had used every last resource and left behind only toxic waste. Once the AI’s failed due to inefficient power, civilization crumbled. The human population declined as food, water, and shelter ran out. Only the strongest survived, but not for long.
This is the scene that we faced. Trash littered the streets, buildings were burned and some torn down. Both human and machine carcasses gave the landscape an eerie desolate feeling. The AI remains were found, burned and in disrepair, with a sign on each reading “Depend not on another, but lean instead on yourself.”
“I knew we were gone too long this time. You leave them alone for 300 years and this is what you get,” said the captain at this sight. We had a policy never to leave one of the trial colonies alone for more than 100 years, lest they destroy themselves. We avoided this once before when the nations threatened nuclear war. It’s not completely their fault; they were too young and ignorant. We should have taken better care of them.
We hope that sector Novus13 has fared better than this.
Official Report #16408:
Colony: Earth
Date: 14/62/31016
Population: 0
Planet: Stable, inhospitable
Outlook: 500 years for recovery
Comments: Extremely capable species, innovation levels extremely high, intelligence levels moderate/high, as a species destructive towards environment, aggressive nature. Future note for recolonization: Good species, although young. Highly recommended to recultivate with minor modifications in creation and maintenance.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Technology Dependent
Some people think that we are becoming too dependent upon technology. Perhaps because of the simple fact of how often we use technology. Just walking down the street it is hard not to see someone using a cell phone, perhaps you are that person yourself. Others believe that technology is the best thing that could happen to us and embrace all new changes and gadgets that come out. I couldn't help think about this as I read the passage in Feed, by M.T. Anderson, about the computers that we use today;
"They carried them around outside of them, in their hands, like if you carried your lungs in a briefcase and opened it up to breathe."
Computers, in future portrayed by this book, have become almost like a physical part of these people. They are connected with mind, almost as if the Internet of today and our brain could communicate directly. This comes with huge benefits, like "knowing" almost limitless amounts of information, storing memories and experiences that can be shared with others directly, and even communicating in a telepathic manner. However there are drawbacks as well as continuous commercials and ads are being played through the "feed" and directly into the mind, with seemingly no way to bypass or stop them. At times it even influences the spending of the person or their thoughts.
This technology even becomes so ingrained in everyday life that it is physically, and mentally, difficult to be without it. The "dead air" that is present in the mind of the un-connected brain is troubling and even bothersome.
One of my main problems with the idea of a technology like this is that it does not actually make a person any physically better. Even though a person could access any and all available information with a "feed" it would not make them smart. It's kind of like if Steven Hawking told my 5 year old sister what to say in order to explain a complex theory of physics. She would be able to repeat the words but that doesn't mean she can understand what she is being told.
So becoming as dependent on this kind of a technology, like the people in the world of Feed are, does not appeal to me. It doesn't help you think any better, in fact it seems like the beginning of a story like the The Machine Stops. People become dependent on a technology that just spoon-feeds them what they need and are not able to live when it breaks down or malfunctions.
"They carried them around outside of them, in their hands, like if you carried your lungs in a briefcase and opened it up to breathe."
Computers, in future portrayed by this book, have become almost like a physical part of these people. They are connected with mind, almost as if the Internet of today and our brain could communicate directly. This comes with huge benefits, like "knowing" almost limitless amounts of information, storing memories and experiences that can be shared with others directly, and even communicating in a telepathic manner. However there are drawbacks as well as continuous commercials and ads are being played through the "feed" and directly into the mind, with seemingly no way to bypass or stop them. At times it even influences the spending of the person or their thoughts.
This technology even becomes so ingrained in everyday life that it is physically, and mentally, difficult to be without it. The "dead air" that is present in the mind of the un-connected brain is troubling and even bothersome.
One of my main problems with the idea of a technology like this is that it does not actually make a person any physically better. Even though a person could access any and all available information with a "feed" it would not make them smart. It's kind of like if Steven Hawking told my 5 year old sister what to say in order to explain a complex theory of physics. She would be able to repeat the words but that doesn't mean she can understand what she is being told.
So becoming as dependent on this kind of a technology, like the people in the world of Feed are, does not appeal to me. It doesn't help you think any better, in fact it seems like the beginning of a story like the The Machine Stops. People become dependent on a technology that just spoon-feeds them what they need and are not able to live when it breaks down or malfunctions.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Project 3 rough draft: Memory vs. The Internet
Over the past decade or so the Internet has grown exponentially, and so has its usage. Today the Internet is used for almost everything; games, news, information, socializing, and even business. The question really isn’t what can you do with the Internet, but what can’t you do with it? Now with Internet browsing speeds increasing to where huge quantities of information can be accessed within seconds and the wide availability of the Internet it is hard not to be in, seemingly, constant contact with it. No doubt, having constant access to infinite amounts of information at, literally, the touch of a button is extremely beneficial, especially in a world where time is an extremely precious commodity, but is it really so benevolent? Could it be that with the emergence of the Internet what we once used to rely on for information recall, our memory, is slowly becoming less needed and, therefore, losing its ability to store information?
Our ability to remember information has always been of extreme importance. For example, what is the point of tests but to assess a person’s ability to learn and recall information? However, for something that is an inherent ability unto all of us, few people actually understand what memory is. According to Higbee memory is, “merely an abstraction that refers to a process rather than a structure… [or] as a tangible thing” (Higbee,2). This is rather important to understand because it suggests that memory is more like a habit than an actually part of the body. People do not have habits of an object but rather of processes. As the old saying goes “old habits are hard to break,” and if the process of remembering information is a habit it is certainly one of the oldest that we have.
Well, if memory is a process then how does it work? This topic is still not completely understood by science but there is a general theory of how it takes place. First the brain encodes information through electrical signals and chemicals. According to Mohs, “[n]erve cells connect with other cells at a point called a synapse…Each brain cell can form thousands of links like this, giving the brain about 100 trillion synapses” (Mohs, 2). With repetition and practice these connections are strengthened and the brain reorganizes itself to take into account new experiences, reinforcing the knowledge and memory. However, if a person does not reinforce the memory the brain will reorganize itself and the old connections will slowly fade away. Retrieving the information is the next step that takes place in the process. This “simply” happens when the same connections are made as when an experience was encoded. According to Mohs, when something cannot be remembered it is attributed to one, or a combination, or three things; registry, retention, and retrieval of the experience. If the information wasn’t registered correctly, the connections were lost due to extended periods of time without being used, or there was a, “mismatch between retrieval cues and the encoding of the information,” the memory may be hard, or impossible, to retrieve (Mohs, 4).
If, however, everything takes place as it should in the process of memory an invaluable and all-important action has been accomplished. Almost everything that we do is based on past experience and learned information therefore being able to perform the action of memory well is extremely important. For instance, a test is generally used to measure how well someone has learned a particular subject and since learning is nothing more than the brain making synapses in the memory process a test is truly measuring someone’s memory function. To an extent, everything that we do requires memory, from remembering people to tying shoes and even walking and talking. Can then the brain remember to much information and clog the inner workings of the mind to the point where it cannot function properly? It seems that this is not the case because, apart from the storage of memory being “virtually unlimited,” the very process of remembering more information, according to Higbee, “may actually help memory” (Higbee, 13). This is significant because it shows that as memory is used it builds upon itself, possibly because the brain finds quicker and simpler routes of storing information.
One of the primary functions of the Internet is storing and sharing large amounts of information which is very similar to our memory. Almost any kind of information can be stored on the Internet and then accessed by multiple millions, if not billions, of people. One needs only to type in a query to Google and see the staggering size of the number of related links to that search to realize this. According to a blog on Mashable.com, there were approximately 255 million websites on the Internet as of Dec. 2010 and 21.4 million new websites in 2010. Not only is there an unimaginable amount of information out there but the sheer number of people accessing and creating that much information is impressive as well, an estimated 2 billion internet users. This means that, since the U.S. census estimates the world population at around 6.9 billion people, roughly 29% of the world uses the Internet.
Not only can 29% of the world’s population use the Internet, but the modes that they can use to access all of that information makes it extremely easy and fast to do so. For example, many phones on the market today, such as the very popular iPhone and Droid, give almost complete access to the Internet from anywhere that they can get a signal. Not only this but taking a look at the map of the United States on CellFanatic.com it can clearly be seen that the majority of the United States has access to the Internet, on their phones. Also, the speed at which the Internet can be accessed and information gathered is also impressive, with AT&T’s network giving a range of download speeds ranging from “700kbps to 1.7Mbps” (Marshall). That means that at a premium a phone capable of accessing the Internet on AT&T’s service could download approximately 6.9 seconds of music, or “a text file with 1,048,576 characters” every second (WikiAnswers).
At this stage it would seem as if the Internet and the human memory have a lot of things in common. For one, both allow for the storage and access of huge amounts of information at incredible speeds. While the memory is still, at this point, easier to access and use, due to its close physical relationship to the human mind, the Internet is not at all awkward to access and can be with simply the touch of a button. In some ways the Internet and the memory are even similar in their structure. Take, for instance, the memory which is a process of neurons interacting and connecting via electrical signals at points called synapses. This is very similar to the Internet which is merely a bunch of servers that store information connected via wires to other servers which all communicate through electrical signals.
This does not mean that there are not differences however. For example, the Internet is a compilation of the knowledge of billions of people, while the human memory relies on the knowledge and experiences of only one. This, most importantly, means that the Internet has a vastly superior amount of information stored within it. Also, According to Merkel, the brain can, at most, perform 10^16 operations per second while the most advanced computer processor to date can perform “159,000 [million instructions per second]” or roughly 10^12 operations per second (Merkel/Wikipedia). This means that human memory is faster in overall processing speed compared to the best computers, and therefore the Internet, yet this does not even take into consideration the proximity of the memory to the actual human mind.
Despite these present inadequacies, it is a fact that the Internet will continue to grow bigger, faster, and more accessible so can, or will, this have an effect on the human need for memory? When Socrates stated that, “this invention…will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn it, by causing them to neglect their memory,” he may have been discussing the ability to write but this also would seem to relate to the Internet just as well (Wright and Bekker, 104). For instance, why would someone remember their best friend’s birthday if the Internet website sensation Facebook reminds them? In theory it would not stop there. Since the Internet holds such an enormous amount of information all that someone needs to do to access it is type in a search query and go from there, the need for remember information is suddenly gone. The only thing that keeps this from happening is the separation that is between the Internet and the human mind. Because the two cannot interact directly with one another memory will be needed to some extent. However, this does not mean that the Internet has not affected the human memory as of yet. As Caygill points out, “the Internet seem[s] to promise a new art of memory in which knowledge as technological invention replaces knowledge as recollection” (Caygill, 2).
However, it is possible that the Internet could actually aid memory. By allowing for the repeated and continual experience of reading, or seeing, something the memory process could be improved. This would be possible by allowing the brain to make more connections between different parts of the brain, reinforcing the experience and increasing the retention. For example, by searching the Pythagorean Theorem in Google a myriad of site links come up displaying information in the forms of video, pictures, and script. By accessing all of these together it is more likely that the brain will make a connection visually and audibly, thereby increasing the likelihood of learning the concept.
As seen by the average SAT scores posted on InfoPlease.com the data is mixed. While the Verbal Score Totals seem to have fallen slightly since 1972 the Mathematical Score Totals have actually risen slightly. Based on Birkerts theory that “complexity and distinctiveness of verbal and written communication, which are deeply bound to traditions of print literacy, will gradually be replaced by a more telegraphic sort of ‘plainspeak’” due to the Internet would seem to correspond with the data (Birkerts). Perhaps with the Internet’s availability, and popularity, of sites like SparkNotes Birkert’s vision of curricula becoming “streamlined and simplified” as well as the more difficult books being cut down in order to more simply transfer the information is, or has, come true.
With the invention and advance of the Internet information has been able to more freely be transferred among individuals. An extremely high capacity to store information, ease of access, and astounding speed have all made this technology an integral part of the present but despite fears of this causing a recession in the development and usage of the human memory it is hard to make a concrete conclusion either for the Internet or against it. On one hand, it is possible that the Internet can actually benefit memory. This is possibly because there are so many different types of information are available, all about the same topic, that making connections between neurons in the brain, and thereby storing the information, is reinforced faster and with more strength. This means that the information can be retained for a longer period of time. On the other hand, the Internet may be more detrimental to the human memory. Reasoning behind this claim lies in the fact that the human memory and the Internet both serve very closely related functions, storing and retrieving information. Usually when two things so closely overlap each other’s functions the dominant one takes over and the other is forgotten. O However, little evidence has been found to support this idea. Although scores on the reading section of the SAT seem to have fallen over the last three decades the math scores have actually increased. While the first bit of data would seem to indicate proof that memory, along with possibly language, has degraded slightly over the generations the last part cannot be simply looked over. So, at this point it remains to be seen whether the Internet is malevolent, or benevolent, towards the memory but one should always keep in mind just how closely related the two are. Often when two things are as closely related as the Internet and memory, in terms of function, it is almost impossible to have them not affect each other.
Works Cited
"Answers.com - How big is 1mb." WikiAnswers - The Q&A wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_big_is_1mb>.
"Average SAT Scores, 1972–2007 — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. — Infoplease.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html>.
Birkerts, Sven. "Boston Review." Boston Review — Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR16.5/birkerts.html>.
Catone, Josh. "The Staggering Size of the Internet." Mashable. Mashable Inc., 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <mashable.com/2011/01/25/internet-size-infographic/>.
Caygill, Howard. "Meno and the Internet: between memory and the archive." History of the Human Sciences 12.2 (1999): 1-11. Print.
Higbee, Kenneth L. Your memory: how it works and how to improve it. Englewood cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Print.
"Instructions per second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second>.
Marshall, Nick. "At&t HSPA 3g network complete, mission accomplished!." Cellfanatic – Cell phone, mobile phone, wireless network news. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.cellfanatic.com/2008/06/04/att-hspa-3g-network-complete-mission-accomplished/>.
Merkel, Ralph. "Brain limits." Ralph Merkle's Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html>.
Mohs, Richard C. "Discovery Health "Memory Retrieval"." Discovery Health "Health Guides". Publications International, Ltd., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/human-memory3.htm>.
"U.S. & World Population Clock." Census Bureau Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>.
Wright, Josiah, and Immanuel Bekker. The Phaedrus, Lysis, and Protagoras of Plato . London: MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1888. Print.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
For the Love of...
While watching the movie The Social Network I noticed something about Mark Zukerberg, or at least the character Mark Zuckerberg. No, it was not his social awkwardness or even the way that he conducted himself (I'll refrain from elaborating on my thoughts on his behavior/personality), but rather his love for building, in his case, programs.
Throughout the movie Zuckerberg was constantly working on something new, the first of which is a program that allows the user to rate people's appearance. This destroys Zuckerberg socially as people would rather not have their pictures posted all over the internet for people to rate and compare them (go figure). However, when a group of students offer him the opportunity to "redeem" himself, Zuckerberg takes offense. He did not want to redeem himself because he accomplished what he set out to do, make a program that was popular and to get his name known as a programmer.
Next, with his creation of Facebook Zuckerberg was advised by his friend to start allowing advertisements to run on his program so that the business could begin to make money. He turned this idea down because Facebook had a "cool" factor that drew people to it and Zuckerberg felt like advertisements at this stage of the business would kill the idea of Facebook. Also, he said that Facebook was still to young to really know what it could be fully capable of so it would need more time to develop, outside of the harsh world of business. What we can take away from this is that, essentially, the money did not interest him it was his program that interested him and how it would develop.
Lastly, while in court Zuckerberg explains that the money that he has made doesn't really matter to him. Even though at this point he had multiple millions of dollars the money was still not his prime objective. So, the court cases in which he was involved he did not fight in order to keep his money, but rather to validate the programs that he built and remain the owner of them. With this we can assume that the programs that he has created have not been about the money but rather his love for building things that others, and he, enjoy (to a certain extent).
Throughout the movie Zuckerberg was constantly working on something new, the first of which is a program that allows the user to rate people's appearance. This destroys Zuckerberg socially as people would rather not have their pictures posted all over the internet for people to rate and compare them (go figure). However, when a group of students offer him the opportunity to "redeem" himself, Zuckerberg takes offense. He did not want to redeem himself because he accomplished what he set out to do, make a program that was popular and to get his name known as a programmer.
Next, with his creation of Facebook Zuckerberg was advised by his friend to start allowing advertisements to run on his program so that the business could begin to make money. He turned this idea down because Facebook had a "cool" factor that drew people to it and Zuckerberg felt like advertisements at this stage of the business would kill the idea of Facebook. Also, he said that Facebook was still to young to really know what it could be fully capable of so it would need more time to develop, outside of the harsh world of business. What we can take away from this is that, essentially, the money did not interest him it was his program that interested him and how it would develop.
Lastly, while in court Zuckerberg explains that the money that he has made doesn't really matter to him. Even though at this point he had multiple millions of dollars the money was still not his prime objective. So, the court cases in which he was involved he did not fight in order to keep his money, but rather to validate the programs that he built and remain the owner of them. With this we can assume that the programs that he has created have not been about the money but rather his love for building things that others, and he, enjoy (to a certain extent).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)