Do we really perceive minds that aren't there?

In this chapter, chapter 10, Carr is looking at how our minds are changing as technology improves. At this point I agree with Carr. The new technologies have changed our minds. Where Carr and I differ is that while he seems to argue in the negative, I feel more positive about the change. For example, on page 213, Carr brings up the findings of neuroscientist Jason Mitchell. Carr argues, using Mitchell’s findings as evidence, that the computer age has affected our ability to “mind read.” Instead Mitchell says that we now perceive minds where they are not, as in the example with ELIZA. In that study, people using the software reported thinking that they were having a conversation with a person, not just a computer algorithm designed to rephrase the last statement in the form of a question. I believe, however, that we are aware of the absence of the mind in these cases. We know that it is a computer on the other side, but we want to believe that it isn’t. We want to believe that we have the technology is there. So as we seek out this artificial mind, it gives the appearance that we wholeheartedly believe that it is another mind. This can spawn from a variety of things. I think that we want to believe that there is someone there, a real mind, because we as humans have become attention seekers. And with that being said, as attention seekers we want there always to be someone listening to us and talking to us, even in the most general of forms; for example a computer program asking you generic questions based on your previous answers. This is another area where I agree with Carr. The internet and the computer age have had some debilitating effects on us as a race. As the internet has grown popularity, so has instant feedback and instant gratification. Someone can now post a Facebook status or tweet about something and instantly know how others feel about it. Whether it is a “like” or a comment on Facebook, or a retweet on Twitter, there is instant gratification. Acknowledgment that there is someone out there reading our posts and doing something with them. This is why we imagine a person behind the machine, we want someone to care, even just a computer. In Carr’s book, I feel like he is saying that we could have avoided this “problem.” I don’t think we could have. I think it was inevitable that someday the world would be connected and that international borders would be overlooked with these new technologies. Carr outlines it in an earlier chapter when he goes through and traces the path that books have taken over the past thousands of years. There was a need to change the book, just as there was a need to change the way we communicate with others. This need did not go overlooked and after several decades of work, we now have the intricate method of communication of today. And it is still changing. The technologies of today are already outdated. The next best thing has already come out. Now we are stuck in an eternal game of catch up.

--David Pierson