Susan Greenfield Professor of Neuroscience
Susan believes that Social Networks may be harmful: “computers may be changing the way we think”. MAIL ONLINE: 24th February 2009
A lack of concentration from spending too much time on Social Networks:
Maybe. But probably building new skills such as rapid responses needed in Kill games mostly played by young men and boys, which may prove to be more harmful.
Are there compensatory factors?
Do games and long stays on Social Networks reduce real life social networking? I bet the answer is maybe, and for some people but not for others in fact a mixture of possibilities.
Professor Sue is obviously correct with some of her observations and she correctly identifies a lack of empathy capacity when dealing with other human beings as a result of using computers too much.
However this lack of empathy is due to the person, how the human being is, how their upbringing affected them, parental care etc; this and nothing to do with placing the blame upon the computer, it does however show that too much of anything is no good for nobody.
The video shows that Professor Sue is most likely correct about computer (A.I) intelligence: can such a device be conscious in the human manner?
As Sue says: its doubtful.
But its also doubtful that many human beings are conscious too! In the sense of self aware consciousness and having the capability to be fully aware and really cognisant of our actions – i.e. not to be driven by impulse and conditioning producing automatic responses.
“Computers may be changing the way we think” but maybe that’s just an observation provided by only recent ‘scientific’ observations of the way people are reacting with computers, has the way we think had periods of change due to many external circumstances in the past? For example no one was around observing how the printing press changed us, and in anycase do we really think? I mean think independently of our sets of previously conditioned and stored auto responses?
As described in the last Splodge Blog (Artificial Intelligence) people do appear to make automated responses that could be compared to a none thinking computer; programmed with automatic responses from external inputs. For example in arguments the tension rising between the persons arguing can appear to be an automatic emotional ratcheting up effect. Seen by an outside observer the pantomime often shows the stupidity of such functions. When the red mist of an argument causes anger; conscious self aware decisions are just not available and the results are stupidity. Good advice from the old adage is to count to ten before commenting against an argumentative opponent. Thus stopping the none thinking automatic response that is there on a hair trigger waiting to pounce.
Like the Manchester United footballer when given a yellow card, swearing to camera, Wayne Rooney said it was just: “a heat of the moment reaction” are we all subject to reactive moments?
Concurrent self awareness: monitoring yourself with an awareness of self offers much more control over the self - in fact we probably have multiple selves that auto act out responses in various previously experienced experiences, produce a template answer framework mindset, and its when these states do not then give up their ‘control’ that problems can set in, when an ‘argument self’ is resident all day; we have all encountered such states in others if not within ourselves.
See Robert Ornstein/Ted Dewan: http://www.amazon.co.uk/MindReal-Mind-Creates-Virtual-Reality/dp/1933779799/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301663960&sr=8-1
Now here is a little experiment you might try for observing a self observing state of mind to see what I mean:
Repeat a word, any word, or a sentence if you prefer.
Repeat it for as long as you can. You will soon realise that you drift off dreaming other thoughts and that your intention to keep repeating the word was lost. You lost your conscious awareness!
Keep on re-trying each time you come back to self remembering: what your intention was. After a few attempts, a couple of times a day and maybe it may take a week for a noticeable result; then apart from realising that you have little authority to command your own mind to do your bidding, you will realise that there are periods when you find yourself ‘there’ concurrently conscious and able to observe another part of your mind fulfilling your command to repeat the intended words.
Its separate from YOU separate from you being absorbed and within it.
There you have it – that is real self aware consciousness; you are observing a sub function. YES a bit like a computer running a sub-routine function! But the human can do this whilst being cognisant of both – observing the observer of the sub routine: does this lead to what Frank Herbert was attempting to describe as ‘Mentat’ capacity in the DUNE series of books? WHO KNOWS. I refuse to go off onto a Splodge tangent!
It does have interesting effects; one is that this process can be called upon to change any repetitive automatic mental music that gets into your mind without permission. Often you just can’t stop it, that continuous monotonous repetitive annoying song that just wont switch off; however this little exercise will do the trick. Which proves to yourself if not to others that it is possible to take control of the sub mind by strengthening awareness in the overmind.
Why is there no psychology research into such matters?
Its quite possible that these self observations could lead to humans beginning to use the parts of the brain that are apparently dormant! It just begins with a little effort.
I wonder if Professor Sue has ever done such experiments upon herself, for the sake of objective science?
No comments:
Post a Comment