I dunno somemore...

Response to “Is Google Makins Us Stupid”

This is an intense article. The first few paragraphs dragged me in due to it’s relevance to my own past. I used to read books all the time. I would read at least one book a week, usually two to three. I spent a good amount of time just browsing books at the bookstore. But I all of a sudden stopped reading as often. I still read a book here and there, but not at the rate I used to. Moreover, last year while reading a book I did something I had never done before…I stopped the book halfway through. I liked the book, “David Copperfield”, I was even engrossed in it at times, but I all of a sudden quit reading. This has been a growing problem in games that I play as well. I used to play long story driven games, RPG’s, and while I still do play them, I find myself stopping somewhere in the story.
Anyways, because I can see the effects mentioned in the first few paragraphs in correlation to my own past, I was drawn more into the article. The irony being that I was drawn into an article which stated that we were being less and less drawn into writings (someone somewhere might be screaming “that’s not irony”, but I have long since learned that I’m bad at pointing out irony…hmm, I just distracted myself). Thus, while the article deals with several things, the parts that garner the most of my attention are the parts that deal with “deep thought”. The idea of efficiency has indeed taken root. I see this most evidently in my recent self, as I skim over articles and readings and take out the parts that seem most necessary.
The other thing that was most surprising to me was the idea that we need an artificial brain to supplement and direct our primary brain. When I read that I actually had a mental jump of my mind screaming “WHAT?” (in internet terms that would be “WHAT???!!!??!!?!?!”). I knew there was a reason I didn’t trust Google, with it’s fancy logos, ease of use, and amazing work environment. The human brain is amazing for many reasons, not the least of which because different brains can ponder the same problem and come to different conclusions. Thinking in terms of just productivity it might be a dream, since everyone would be working off the same information and thus would have no issue arriving at the same conclusions, making board meetings a breeze, but when thinking in terms of creativity, everyone would be painting “The Last Supper” for the rest of their lives.
I feel like I’m rambling, and the more I do so, the further I move away from the article. I feel like this is what the article was afraid of…then again rambling is a result of the mind exploring connections, so perhaps it’s what the article was trying to promote… But then again, rambling also seems to be something that skims the surface of the brain as it is jumping through thoughts. The article seems to want more exploration of an idea, or perhaps a “deeper” connection to an idea. However, rambling, while it is a bit of a light skimming of the brain, is still creating a sequence of connectivity between thoughts, thus expanding the original idea without actually going deep into the meaning of that idea, so perhaps rambling is creating depth within that idea by adding more material to the idea.
I have just successfully, I think, rambled about rambling. I think I deserve a pat on the back. But I think I can honestly think of rambling as being intricately correlated to the idea behind the article, as rambling is a process that can only be done by the human brain as it makes jumps through separate ideas that are only loosely connected. Where as I believe that the supplement of AI will cause the mind to see only what is there directly.
I might devolved a little to far away from the article, so I’ll stop now.