A very curious article. It never occurred to me that "Our effortless integration with our technologies makes us characteristically and distinctively human."

In fact, the whole article reads as a curiously inhumane description of humanity.

Hidden in plain sight is the question: who or what is an "I"? And where is the invisible line that separates our Cartesian "I" from these supposed "technologies" of body and brain functions? Or is I-ness simply a meta-technology - ala Dennett etal?

An enjoyable but perplexing read.

It occurred to me that an important and practical issue may be addressed by the writer of this article. My last few games of golf have started off well for the first three holes. However, as my uncertainty rises from the odd duff shot my gaim quickly degenerates to that of a hacker. The first shots are played in an unconscious manner and I have assumed that unconscious mechanisms have formed my swing. However, as consciousness takes over, that automatic mechanism is muffled and my game deteriorates. The question is, how do I stop the move to consciousness? How can I keep my golf swing automatic?

Sells:

Practice, to get the neuron structure in place to do what you want.
Relax, so your conscious brain doesn't blunder in.

And sometimes you just have to

Rest, because neurons get tired too (I'm not kidding).

In modelling subconscious activity as "robotic modules", it is important not to overlook the important differences:

1. We don't "launch" the subconscious component to our activities. You can't order it around. Anything you're concentrating on is being managed by your conscious mind, not off-loaded to a "module". This is why it is possible to "try too hard" to tie that shoe, key that PIN number, or score that goal - your conscious mind blunders in and throws all that well-practiced expertise away.

2. We cannot "program" the subconscious mind like we would program a robot; it is all about practice. If I move your beer to a different shelf in your fridge, even if I tell you and you remember, you're going to go to the wrong place at least a few times before your subconscious catches up.

Absolutely excellent stuff Dewi, many thanks.

It's got me to thinking, it may pay to drop in for the "one" at the 19th hole to dim the conscious mind a bit so the subconscious can get on with what it does best.

Yes, yes, yes, I know - it won't work. But it creates a very good excuse.

Aside - now to print out and remember all that techo stuff by Dewi if challenged about starting at the wrong end of the course. Hmm, I like this, I like this a lot. Yes, I think I could even get away with it...

I'm not disputing here but asking for clarification: it was stated that: - "[t]he first cognitive technology was probably language..." which would seem to argue, in light of other comments, that this was an externally imposed paradigm? Yet further down experimanets with primates were cited in which the very same cognitive reflexes that we express through language were observed.

I had always thought that it was merely the physiological apparatus which enables us to shape sounds that was the only thing that seperates humans from other animals? In which case it would be this phsicality which has enabled us to evolve as we have - albeit through the use of language. Surely the animal experiments showed that they too were capable of the same processes but lacked the ability to vocalise them. Which surely argues that it is not "cyber" ability which is unique to us - simply that the addition of vocal chords enabled us to further utilise these abilities? Surely then, QED that what seperates humans from animals is still physiological and not mental? I can't quite make the leap to believing that this "gift" is unique to humanity and therefor remain unconvinced that anything but a physical development is responsibe for our on-going development. Can someone explain where I am going wrong?