At the end of my October 9th, 2012, post on the growing trend of “going it alone,” I mentioned William Powers’ 2010 book Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age, and suggested that Powers’ book contained good information on how to appropriately approach the growing analog–digital divide. Simply, face-to-face relationships would be on the analog side of the divide, and Facebook relationships would be on the other. With Facebook users now totaling one billion, I would suggest that one of the biggest challenges facing all of humanity (and, by extension, philanthropists) is the analog–digital divide: what is it? where did it come from? how do we recognize it? when to be on one side versus the other? have we encountered this type of divide before? and many other questions. The analog–digital divide brings up questions and issues that fall along such continuums as
- human–posthuman
- modern–postmodern
- natural evolution–manmade evolution
- natural intelligence–artificial intelligence
- therapy–enhancement
- human care–mechanical care
As an example, the analog–digital divide is mapped by such popular headlines as Checking Facebook or Twitter is More Tempting Than Sex or Cigarettes, Says Study.
In an attempt to explore, understand, and bridge the analog–digital divide, I thought it prudent to take a stab at summarizing Hamlet’s Blackberry in a series of blog posts. This will not be a true summary in that I will be focusing in on those topics that have the potential to illuminate the analog–digital divide. Note: I’m providing page numbers from Hamlet’s Blackberry so that a reader could tie his or her read of Powers’ book (which I highly recommend) back to the information I present here, in essence potentially making this blog series a study guide of sorts. Further Note: This blog series will in all likelihood contain many parts because I will endeavor to make each post about 1,000 words long. Lets get started.
Page 2 – Early on, Powers suggests that there are essentially two mental worlds (1): one concerned with the inner, reflective experience, and the other concerned with the outer, object experience. This agrees with the perspective that neurobiologist Elkhonon Goldberg presents in his 2009 book The New Executive Brain—Frontal Lobes in a Complex World. Goldberg suggests that the mid brain is centrally concerned with the question What is it? In contrast, the upper brain (where we find the frontal lobes, home of the Executive Functions) is centrally concerned with the question What does it mean? Simply, the mid brain looks for objects; the upper brain looks for the meaning of objects, that is to say, the context that makes sense of why a particular collection of objects is before us. As an example, in the 2009 animated movie Up, the dog character, Dug, is distracted and yells out “Squirrel!” upon seeing the furry creature. Yelling out “Squirrel!” is a good example of a mid brain experience. The upper brain might tell us, “Well that makes sense because we’re in a wooded environment where, and during a time of the year when, we would expect to encounter squirrels.” In response to the advance of digital technology, Powers states: “Of the two mental worlds everyone inhabits, the inner and the outer, the latter increasingly rules.” So, here are two more continuums to consider:
- upper brain–mid brain
- inner experience–outer experience
The above two continuums should be important to philanthropists because Goldberg and many other cognitive scientists effectively frame such conditions as ADHD (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder) as being locked in the object world of the mid brain without any way of effectively accessing the meaning-making or sense-making world of the upper brain. Powers correctly observes that the advance of digital technology carries with it the potential to increasingly lock us in the object world of the mid brain.
Page 4 – Here’s Powers’ “bottom line” concerning the advance of digital technology:
[W]e’re losing something of great value, a way of thinking and moving through time that can be summed up in a single word: depth. Depth of thought and feeling, depth in our relationships, our work and everything we do. Since depth is what makes life fulfilling and meaningful, it’s astounding that we’re [unreflectively] allowing this to happen.
So, here’s yet another continuum: depth–shallowness. As an example, consider the title to Nicholas Carr’s 2010 book The Shallows—What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. As this title suggests, digital technologies like the Internet are moving us away from depth and toward shallowness. As most of you know I have blogged extensively about Carr’s book The Shallows, and I invite you to visit those posts. In addition, Carr spoke at the Foundation’s RYOL Lecture back in February, 2012 (a summary of which appears on this blog site).
Page 6 – Powers simple states: “Humans love to journey outward.” He continues thus
The connective impulse is central to who we are. But it’s the return trip, back to self and the life around us, that gives our screen time [e.g., digital experience time] value and meaning. Why shouldn’t we aim for a world that serves both needs?
OK, you know what I’m going to say. The above quote nicely captures the essence of the mother–child Bowlbian attachment relationship: the safe and secure child moves out into the world to explore objects and things, and then returns to the home base that would be mother, to go inside, to explore the meaning of things, to make sense out of the collection of objects encountered. So, yes, I agree: why shouldn’t we as philanthropists and service providers aim for a world that serves both needs of a safe and secure attachment relationship: to go out to explore objects and to return home to explore the meaning and significance of those object collections?
Page 11 – Powers returns to the subject by defining depth in this way:
It’s the quality of awareness, feeling, or understanding that comes when we truly engage with some aspect of our life experience.
Powers now touches on a subject that cognitive scientists call procedural memory. Procedural memory is closely associated with the functioning of the mid brain areas and takes place largely outside of consciousness or reflection. Goldberg (mentioned above) goes so far as to suggest that we really have two brain selves if you will: a mid brain procedural self, and an upper brain reflective self. Again, it’s the mid brain that yells out Squirrel! unconsciously or unreflectively. But it is the upper brain that wonders, “Gee, I wonder if it makes sense to encounter a squirrel at this place and time?” The Heath brothers in their 2010 book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard note that throughout time philosophers have characterized the mid brain as some type of animal—horse, elephant, etc.—and the upper brain as a human rider. As the Heaths point out, any process of social change will inevitably involve getting the elephant and rider to work together. I guess one way to frame ADHD is to look at it as a horse and rider not working in concert or going in different directions. I’ll end this post with Powers’ description of procedural memory:
When you’re driving your car and you come to a stop sign, you perceive the sign and its meaning [unconsciously], and you react to it. But beyond this automatic, almost [procedural] mechanical act, you don’t give the sign any special thought or consideration. It doesn’t enter your interior world and take up residence. Like countless other ephemeral objects of your [mid brain] attention, it remains on the sidelines, a bit player.
That’s my 1,000 words or so for this post, so lets “sum the sum”:
- The analog–digital divide may well be the most pressing issue facing philanthropists and service providers today.
- Hamlet’s Blackberry is a book that may allow us to explore, understand, and bridge the analog–digital divide.
- The analog–digital divide brings up many potential boundaries (and boundary crossings) that are worth considering, such as (but not limited to): human–posthuman, modern–postmodern, inner experience–outer experience, depth–shallowness, human care–robot care, natural intelligence–artificial intelligence, and therapy–enhancement.
- There are essentially two mental worlds: one outer and object-oriented; the other inner and meaning-oriented.
- Digital technologies tend to emphasize outer experience while deemphasizing inner experience.
- Philanthropists and service providers should work together for a balanced world that allows for both inner and outer experiences.
- The ebb and flow of inner and outer experiences is like the moving out to explore and the returning home of a safe and secure Bowlbian attachment relationship.
- A book like Switch has the practical information for both philanthropists and service providers on how to bring about social change by getting the rider (upper conscious brain) to work in concert with the elephant (mid procedural brain).
As they say, stay tuned for part 2. I’ll try to get it out as soon as I possibly can. In the mean time, consider reading Powers’ book Hamlet’s Blackberry. If you have read Hamlet’s Blackberry, feel free to leave your comments concerning the information that Powers presents.
Further Reading: For a good book on how the presence of monsters in society across time often mark the boundary between what it means to be human and trespasses against humanity, I would recommend Elaine Gramham’s 2002 book entitled Representations of the Post/Human—Monsters, Aliens and Others in Popular Culture. Contact the Foundation using the CONTACT US button above (or email us for those of you receiving this post by email) to request an executive summary of Gramham’s book.
(1) – In his 2009 book Is God a Mathematician, Mario Livio points to the work of Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose when he suggests that there are in fact three worlds: “[T]he world of our conscious perceptions, the physical world, and the Platonic world of mathematical forms” (quoting Livio, italics in original). Powers’ two mental worlds would fit within the world of conscious perceptions. The point here is to keep in mind (no pun intended) all three worlds as we investigate the analog–digital divide. Trust me when I say that the digital world is intimately connected to the world of mathematical forms. Livio quotes Penrose when he reminds us, “No doubt there are not really three worlds but one, the true nature of which we do not even glimpse at present” (italics in original). Continuing to use Penrose’s work as a background, Livio points out that each of the above three worlds has a mystery associated with it. Here’s a summary of those mysteries:
- First, the world of physical reality seems to obey laws that actually reside in the world of mathematical forms
- Second, the perceiving minds themselves—the dwelling of our conscious perceptions—somehow managed to emerge (my emphasis) from the physical world. How was mind literally born out of matter (e.g., mind–body dualism)?
- Third, those perceiving minds were miraculously able to gain access to the mathematical world by discovering or creating and articulating a treasury of abstract mathematical forms and concepts.
