Summary of the Cognitive Integration of E-Memory

Robert W. Clowes

What is E-Memory?

“E-Memory was then defined as a heterogeneous bunch of devices and systems which fulfill similar functions either by replacement, extension or augmentation.” (Clowes, 2013)

The major question that the author seeks to answer seems to be that if human cognition is ever-evolving, how does technology and more specifically E-memory play a role in that cognitive evolution?  A natural consequence of this line of thought is whether that external aid of E-memory enhances or diminishes the user in question. To this end, the author mentions four factors that influence the user’s “incorporation profile” (Clowes, 2013) thus resulting in “novel cognitive possibilities” (Clowes, 2013). These include the following:

Totality: This is a complete record of sights, sounds, words and text and perhaps movement too in the form of “total re-call” previously known as “capaciousness and comprehensiveness”. It preserves all details with fidelity and completeness and impossible with O-memory alone.

Practical Cognitive Incorporability: this factor talks about 1) portability 2) power and 3) readiness that in turn makes it just like the user’s own mind in terms of “usability”. These qualities further make it 1) customizable and 2) transparent. (Clowes, 2013)

Autonomy: This is to say that though “E-Memory repositories do not merely store data but also process it.” Examples include tagging, indexing, scraping etc. which leads to  a lack of control of the users over their information and transfers “autonomy” to the tool being used to enhance the native cognitive profile (Clowes, 2013) .

Entanglement: This is really where the user really loses control over information shared using E-memory repositories where “memory traces” are used in user interactions e.g.by creating an “edge” such that user information gets manipulated in ways that are not obvious to the user. This information would then be used by multiple users for varied purposes.

The author argues that where totality and transparent-use or incorporation in terms of “ease of use” may be great for the user and encourage a further extension of the user’s mind which could result in the user’s belief that this extension was really in essence his own mind, issues were likely to arise in case of autonomy and entanglement which signal towards a risk of “tampering” either via the technology in the way the user interacts with it or via other users that further interact with that information. Thence, it seems that perfect reliance on E-memory would be unlikely but it could still serve as a useful resource to enhance a user’s cognitive profile-especially if developed and used with the cognizance of the ways in which trust or complete reliance-as on the user’s own mind could be betrayed.

The Limits to incorporability: Clark and Chalmers’ critera

There is mention of four factors that practically “see-off” the dangers of a “cognitive-bloat”. I essentially understand this to be the overload of technology that fails to aid or extend the mind as seen in schools that market themselves as “state-of-the-art”.

1. Constancy
2. Facility
3. Trust
4. Prior Endorsement

The article then seeks to understand if E-memory fulfills these criteria in order to become a useful mind-extender or whether practical incorporability may be hindered by some of its intrinsic features?

However, through totality and incorporability, the first two criteria seem to be met. But trust and prior endorsement remain loyal to the native cognitive profile only, since “autonomy” and “entanglement” limits the possibility of the user’s complete control over its information.  However, all is not lost as E-memory still remains an inevitable reality to which certain tweaks and changes may be made such that the element of incorporability as an enhanced-mind may be realized-if not complete incorporability.

Major Takeaways:

• I realized the various ways in which technology aids the cognitive process, previously unimaginable by the essentially un-aided mind!
• I also realized how all technology is not good or entirely bad-and the need to develop an eye for actual mind-extenders.
• Also, keeping the current scenario in mind, it seems inevitable that technological aids are the future yet we need to develop ways whereby the autonomy of the individual maybe safeguarded.