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>.
No comments:
Post a Comment