Is your phone part of your mind? | David Chalmers | TEDxSydney

Is your phone part of your mind? | David Chalmers | TEDxSydney

Translator: Maria K.
Reviewer: Elisabeth Buffard Hi, everyone! I want to talk to you
about a new way of looking at the mind. What I call the extended mind is the idea that the technology we use
becomes part of our minds, extending our minds and indeed
ourselves into the world. We’ll start with something
that might be a little bit more familiar: the extended body. We are used to the idea
that we can extend our bodies with technology. We know about prosthetic limbs. Here is the athlete Oscar Pistorius running on his prosthetic legs. You don’t need prosthetic limbs
to extend your body. Blind people say that their canes
serve as an extension of their body. You know, it feels exactly
like a body from the inside, or in more mundane everyday experience, a car can feel like
an extension of your body, a bike, or indeed, a musical instrument. You saw a great illustration
of that a few minutes ago with Tjupurru with his didjeribone,
a real extension of his body. Well, so it is with the body,
so it is for the extended mind, where technology gets incorporated
into our human minds. You might think that to incorporate
technology into your mind you’d have to turn yourself into a cyborg. Something like that! A whole bunch of, you know,
of pipes and tubes inside your head, or at least you need a whole bunch
of fancy technology like this on your head, but I actually think there’s
a more ordinary kind of mind extension, which is happening to us
right now, all the time, as we move into the technological future. So take our friend the iPhone. I’ve had one of these now
for maybe three or four years, and it’s basically started taking over a whole bunch
of the functions of my brain. (Laughter) Things my brain used to do
are now done by my iPhone. I mean, there’s a million examples, take memory: How many people use their brains
to remember phone numbers anymore? Not me! You know, my iPhone does all the work. It used to be, the biological memory
used to carry the load, now the iPhone is carrying
the load for me, acting as my memory. The iPhone serves to control planning functions
that my brain used to do. Spatial navigation, offloaded from my brain into Google Maps. The iPhone even stores
as the repository of my desires. I’ve got a program on the iPhone that tells me my favorite dishes
at the local restaurant. I go there and just look it up
and say this, this, this. The iPhone is controlling
my desires for me. It even makes decisions for me. Here’s the executive decision maker. Am I going to go speak
at that TED conference? Oh, definitely! You might say, “Okay, well,
this is all a big metaphor, and it’s a little bit
like a mind in someways.” But I think there’s actually an interesting philosophical thesis here
that I want to defend, that in some sense the iPhone
is literally becoming part of your mind. Your mind is extending
from your brain into the world, so the iPhone is actually part of it. The iPhone hasn’t been
implanted into your mind, but you might think it’s as if it were in. Here’s an iPhone implanted into your mind, it’s as if it was implanted
into your mind, although it’s actually
out there in the world. That’s the extended mind thesis. So the iPhone’s memory
is basically my memory. The iPhone’s planning or navigation is basically my planning and navigation
as if it had happened inside the brain. Now for me as a philosopher,
this is really interesting because one of the central
philosophical problems about the mind, maybe the central philosophical
problem about the mind, is what we call the mind-brain problem. How does the mind – your thinking
and your feeling – relate to your brain, this bunch of mushy neurons
you have inside your head? Is it something more
or is it something less? If you ask most people,
“Where is your mind?” they’d point and say,
“Well, it’s somewhere in there.” This extended mind thesis, I think it’s some transformed
vision of the mind, but the mind is not just in the brain, it’s partly in the world around us, in the environment that we interact with. Now, I don’t know. You might think this is kind of crazy
or even totally mad. When my collaborator, Andy Clark, and I first put this thesis forward
back in the mid 1990s, we came across a bit of resistance then; a lot of people made objections. Back then, we didn’t have iPhones. Our central example was a notebook. People writing stuff down in the notebook and using that as a memory. And indeed, you don’t need high-tech to get the idea
of the extended mind going. The very first time
somebody counted on their fingers, that was a kind of mind extension. A kind of addition that could have
been taking place in your head is happening on your fingers,
but technology really amplifies this extension of our mind. And I think it’s made the thesis
ring true for more people as well, because we experience
this actually happening to us. But still you might object
in various ways. This iPhone is just a tool,
it’s not really part your mind. For it really to become part of your mind,
you’d have to implant it like this. To be in your mind it’s got to be
on the inside of your skull. Or maybe, it can’t be part of your mind: it’s metal. Minds are biological. They involve a soul or something. Now, I think it’s a tricky issue, but I think this kind
of reaction which you get involves a kind of a brain chauvinism. It’s like a gender chauvinism,
or race chauvinism, or species chauvinism. What’s so special about the brain? What’s so special
about the inside of the brain, compared to the outside? For a start, it’s like, if you’ve got stuff that’s going on
on the inside of the brain, the same stuff could in principle go on
on the outside of the brain. We want to say [there’s]
no difference in principle as long as it’s driving
the processes inside the brain, the action, the consciousness, in the same way
that would happen otherwise. There’s no principle barrier
about the skull; that would be skull chauvinism. Likewise, metal versus biology. If the metal does the same job
the biology is doing, that would also count
as part of the mind. Otherwise it would be
biology, DNA chauvinism. So I think that objection can be rejected. You might think that – Somehow consciousness
is at the very center of the mind, and I’ve got some sympathy with this. Consciousness is
this deeply internal state. But I think what we’re thinking,
what we’re feeling right in the present moment
is at the core of the mind, but there’s always
a whole lot to our minds which is outside our consciousness. What we think, our innermost desires,
our hopes, our fears, our personality traits, most of this is not passing through
your mind at any given moment. Any given moment is just
a tiny little snapshot. What makes you you
is a whole bunch of stuff which is outside your consciousness
available to affect us. So your memories are mostly
outside your consciousness. The view here is it doesn’t matter whether it’s stored somewhere deep
in your brain or out there in the world. If it’s out there, accessible to you,
driving your state, then it counts as part of your mind. There is still a brain
at the core of all this. I’m not saying
the iPhone is itself a mind. You are still the mind with your brain
and your consciousness at the core. But the iPhone is part of it. It’s kind of an extension, if you like. What was that? That’s right, my iPhone begs to differ. It thinks it’s the mind
and I’m the extension. (Laughter) So this thesis I think is not just –
it’s a new way of looking at the world, a new way of looking at the mind. But I think it actually makes a difference
to some of our practices. In Alzheimer’s disease, when people describe themselves
as losing their minds. And one thing we found works really well in handling people with Alzheimer
and slowing the decline is the use of mind extension technology. People use notes
in the environment, for example, to act as a kind of memory,
external memory, with labels everywhere. This really serves to slow down
the loss of mental function, keeping some aspect of their minds
out there in the world. There are issues about – It makes a difference to education. There are debates
about open book examinations and the use of calculators in exams. Well, if you take
the extended mind thesis, you ought to be testing
the whole extended self. If a calculator or a computer
is going to be with you, coupled with you,
reliably available in the future, it is part of your extended self, and you ought to be testing
the whole extended self. Here’s a case of extended perception. A blind person who starts
using his iPhone as a vision tool. This is the color identification program, Color ID. You can download it. It basically reads out colors. You point it at something
and it reads it out. He said he used this to see
a sunset for the first time. He held it up and it said,
“Red, orange, yellow, azure, crimson.” He was moved to tears. It felt like he was seeing
the sunset for the first time using this as an extended
vision mechanism, extended perception mechanism. And as wearable computing becomes
more and more ubiquitous in our lives, this is just going, I think,
to become more and more common. Here we’ve got glasses that compute stuff
for us through extended perception. There’s also the socially extended mind. We all know when other people
become extensions of your mind. We all know long-term couples where one person acts
as another person’s memory. You know, reminding them
things at the right time, or when they finish
each other’s sentences or speak as a single
individual in a conversation. In effect, what’s happening now
is one person is becoming part of, an extension of
another person’s mind or vice versa. I’ll be in my mind if – I’ll be in your mind if you’ll be in mine. I think Bob Dylan said that. Also, social networking
is really amplifying this. So, when I was preparing
this talk about a month ago, I sent a note out to Facebook. “I’ve got to give a 15 minute TED Talk
in Sydney next month, on the extended mind. Any ideas on how to approach it?” And I got a whole lot of responses, some pretty useful responses
from this social network, which is kind of surrounding us,
becoming part of our extended mind. There were more, and there were more,
and there were more, (Laughter) including of a whole bunch of useful
suggestions, I stole a bunch of them. Not least of them, this one, “Exciting, maybe you could
work Facebook in?” (Laughter) Or, “Well you could start by mentioning
you crowdsourced the whole talk …” Thanks guys, that was handy. Now there are some downsides and dangers
to this whole extended mind thesis. And one is that as our minds
move into the world, we become more vulnerable to their loss than when they are protected
on the inside of the skull. This is already something familiar
from things like the floods in Queensland or there are bushfires in Victoria. We often talk about the greatest tragedy
being that people lose their memories. Their houses and their
possessions and so on have basically become part of them. The loss of them really feels
like the loss of one’s self. And as more of one’s mind gets extended,
the more there is vulnerability. Just say somebody steals my iPhone. [IF YOU CAN READ THIS,
SOMEBODY STOLE MY iPHONE] (Laughter) You might think that’s a form of theft
and they should be punished for this. But if I’m right, that should
actually be reconceived as a really vicious form of assault. Like getting into my brain
and messing with my neurons. And that really does kind of capture
the attitude I have to my iPhone. You might worry this is going
to turn us into robots. Remember the guy from Lost in Space? “Danger,” Will Robinson! But I think we have to remember we still always have consciousness
at the middle of this, and judgement, and the extension of our minds doesn’t
abrogate us from using our judgement. With better and better technology,
which becomes more and more flexible, there’s the hope that the interplay
of judgement and technology might move us forward in interesting ways. So, I actually think then, to conclude, this extended mind thesis offers us
some hope of an optimistic worldview. People say, “Is Google making us stupid?” This is a debate which has been
out there in the media. Well, if I’m right
about the extended mind thesis, there’s a sense in which
Google is actually making us smarter. Google is getting inside our minds. And I don’t know about you,
but I heard someone saying, “When I sit down and Google,
I feel like my IQ goes up 30 points.” (Laughter) It’s like all that knowledge –
and they say knowledge is power of a kind, so it leads to a kind of
potential democratization, too, of the powers of the mind. As technology becomes cheaper
and available to more, and more advanced, it’s going to spread. Phones are already spreading. Google is spreading. With time, this becomes
available to everyone. In a way I think what’s going on here is a trend which is
in the very early stages of turning us into
superheroes of the mind. Technology is gradually
giving us these superpowers, turning us into cognitive
super geniuses, if you like, and it is going to go more
and more this way in the future. The question is, will we use
these powers for good or for evil? That’s the gift of the extended mind
and the challenge it presents as we move into our extended future. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Danny Hutson

87 thoughts on “Is your phone part of your mind? | David Chalmers | TEDxSydney

  1. If the mind is not just in the brain, but also includes things like notepads and smart phones, then what exactly is not part of our mind. In other words, where would you draw the line between something being part of your mind/brain or not?

  2. @Hockeyjason You know just as well as I do that "draw the line" was being used in a metaphorical sense and that your objection completely misses the point, which was, where does "the Mind" cease to exist? If you can do no better than telling me that my question is invalid without giving any convincing reason why this should be the case, do me a favor and stop wasting my time.

  3. @ja524309 The more general concern is to give an accurate definition of mind. The extended mind hypothesis is then a claim about what an optimal definition of mind includes. Mind being muddy at the moment, it's more relevant to consider special cases like personal memory. As he said, this has implications for Law for instance. If someone steals your iPhone, should this be a case of damage to the owners memory? It might turn out that a good definition of personal memory includes some such things.

  4. @ja524309 I contend that there are no limits of the mind and it is is inclusive of everything and everyone


  5. I'd like to see a talk on extended consciousness. There is plenty of scientific evidence of psi and even a few compelling theories. Psi is also compatible with what we know about space time. It might not be reliable and so practically useful, but its implications about what consciousness IS are extraordinary.

  6. The issue is that we cannot subcontract critical tasks of the mind to body extensions. A stolen laptop or and erased important folder may serve as examples, my students getting less intelligent (to put it politely) because they do not train their minds (literacy) and memory any more: they only remember where information is stored – leading to a copy and share culture. There are undeniable advantages, but also a lot of downsides.

  7. @Khuno2 This man is one of the most widely published, distinguished and respected philosophers in the academic world. Read one of him many papers on the matter (all available on his website), and if you can understand it, then you will realise this.

  8. @MGTGR123 I'm the opposite. I generally find Chalmers' ideas weak and unconvincing, but I completely agree with the extended mind thesis (which, by the way, was not his idea).

  9. @moonfreak1993 Can you please elaborate? I'm not sure what you were responding to or what point you were trying to make.

  10. youre dumb. that's not at all the idea. the technology becomes an extension of your mind, technically part of your mind, only because it has become a daily use extension. If we were to call the iphone something else instead, say "brick". I used my brick to pay a man in china, I used my brick to order pizza from down the street, i used my brick to record my sons birth, I used my brick to broadcast the images worldwide to every relative my son has, I used my brick to discuss the extended mind…

  11. not thinking about the iphone as a popular technology of our time and maybe even thinking back to before its invention, we might then realize how fantastical its creation was. Our minds used to be confined to our surroundings. Our physical selves had to complete each task our mind thought up. With the invention of the internet and now a mobile, nearly implanted technology, the iphone, we may have stepped into a new evolutionary stage. hive mind.

  12. also he mentions how we used to memorize phone numers, addresses, itinerary, driving directions. now the responsibility of those tasks have been moved to the iphone. this example is probably the easiest to grasp this idea. If this machine has taken over some of your cognitive functions, technically then isn't it being used as an augmentation to our physical mind? Its a tool we use daily, the same way hunters extended their abilities using armor and weaponry, the iphone does this for our minds

  13. mind is already an obscure term. I don't think chalmers or andy clark are making it anymore obscure. The point is, once a coupled system has become established (as in the case of a poised notebook) the competency of the system deteriorates once the external factor is eliminated.

  14. not everything we use is part of our "mind." Note, Chalmers presentation is at a TED talk in which rigor is sacraficed for presentation purposes. Read the actual paper by Andy Clark and Chalmers. They set out a set of conditions for a real case of extension. Not just any old instrumental use of some external artifact can be counted as part of a cognitive system.

  15. mind does not equal consciousness. That's your bad. Extended mind, in the way chalmers and clark push, is about the extension of cognitive processes…it is not an account of phenomenal character.

  16. This is like saying a hammer is part of my "extended self." It is not. It is merely a tool, as is the iphone. When these things become conscious we can look into his thesis. Meanwhile, it's the incremental side-step into mechanization. I find his thesis cold and clouded with fuzzy logic. As others have pointed out, even using the term "mind" is questionable, since it has a fuzzy definition,as he straddles philosophy and science.

    Technology is a tool NOT our friend – not a healthy attitude.

  17. I thought I would really like this video, but no, it didn't really impress me. I agree with those who commented on the fuzziness of the thinking and on the "showmanship". To me, we all start in consciousness … and mind is a tool of consciousness that we (each individual 'part' or 'focus' of consciousness) use to create and allow experiences, to record and to think with experiences, and to assist in sharing experiences with the greater consciousness that IS.

  18. Why is his attitude not healthy? Would you say that your hand, or eyes, or ears are merely tools? None of these things are conscious, but they are used by consciousness to accomplish tasks to reach goals that the mind desires. This is a matter of semantics though, and the important point he is trying to get across is that education needs to be done in a way that doesn't pretend technology doesn't exist because the full spectrum of the tools of the mind should be considered.

  19. Also, saying a hammer is part of the "extended self" is not like what he was saying, but it is exactly what he was saying. Its also true in the sense he was saying it. If the mind wants to put a nail in the wall, it doesn't tell you to try to push the nail in with your hand, it tells you to look for a hammer in order to extend your capabilities. How is that view wrong or dangerous?

  20. I like someone who can disagree respectfully. I wish it would spread like a virus 😉

    Next, I don't see it as semantics at all – it goes deeper. Cleve Baxter showed us that even plants are conscious – as are cells. So hand, eyes, body parts are indeed conscious – a direct part of my consciousness that I use & work thru – unlike a hammer or iPhone, quite.

    Education is rife with technology – that's not a problem. By defining technology almost as body parts, we march to mechanization, which is.

  21. That is a very interesting idea that plants are conscious, although I think that requires a very clear definition of what consciousness is. I'm certainly open to that possibility, but what I want to know is what you fear from mechanization?

    I also agree that education does incorporate technology in the teaching process, but it cuts out most technology in the testing process. We tend to call using technology during a test cheating, but otherwise its called research.

  22. Baxter's experiments/research resulted in The Secret Life of Plants, so there is proof. He later expanded his research to include cells. Because he was a lie-detection professional rather than a hard scientist some of his work has been ignored. He'll be famous posthumously, imo.

    If you've seen Ray Kurzwei's Transcendent Man, you'd be afraid, too – perpetual life for some cyborg container for your brain/consciousness. It's the mechanical defining of life which leads down some dark roads.

  23. I know about Baxters experiments, and I do find his results to be fascinating, but I can't claim enough knowledge about it to be pushed one way or another. All I can say about it is that I'm very curious to find out the answer

    I haven't seen that movie, but I think I know what you're getting at. If we reduce ourselves to purely mechanical processes, we might lose something precious to life that has been overlooked.

  24. I hope you'll forgive me for this, but consider yourself hugged 🙂 LOL, so great to find such a reasonable discussion on YT on topics like this. So often people respond with anger if you just disagree.

    Yes, I do love science, but today it lacks ethics and oversight. It's divorce from philosophy/consciousness has let it go down some very dark roads. As a society we've got to be careful. I think we all need to speak out when we feel we have something to say. It gets the discussion going 🙂

  25. Don't know if you exist. Tried to go to your channel and got a message "This channel is not available" ?? Are you a ghost in the machine 😉

  26. I don't think that's something to fear in regards to what David said because he made it a point to mention he isn't talking about changes to the brain or implants. His suggestion was that it isn't necessary because technology can work with the mind even if its external and not connected.

  27. Of course our brains are special, and there is no doubt that we are an intelligent species. But lets not get carried away here. We are only half a chromosone difference to a chimp! Now look at the difference in intelligence between us!…Now think about an alien species…if the difference between human and alien lifeforms are only a mere half a chromososone then we would be looked upon by aliens as pets!…worse than that, aliens would consider us as just a lowly worm and have no interest in us

  28. Thank you for including a philosophical sociological view. Yes, technology is definitely an extension to our actions and thoughts. It's miraculous, it really is!

  29. Drone strikes would be an example of using the extended mind/body for evil. Sadly, with the way the world is organised that kind of use will probably be common

  30. For anyone interested, if you type in "Supersizing the Mind. PDF" you'll find a free copy online of Andy Clark's latest book detailing the idea Chalmers is expounding above.

  31. thats evolution my friend. In the near future the lines that seperate man and machine will fade. human consciousness will be in the machine….and as a result the universe would have evolved a more faster way of understanding itself, both with faster computation in conjuction with feeling. The universe is evolving, it is self aware through us humans.

  32. Careful. Believe it or not, there are people who literally think the whole universe is some mystical thing with a brain that is somehow becoming aware of itself out of a natural progression. You're dangerously close to identifying with them.

    The universe certainly isn't ~trying~ to understand itself. And we aren't the universe, so it's not really that meta for us to watch it. Maybe one day we'll fill our galaxy with a computer mind, but until then, we're at best a poorly run swarm intelligence.

  33. we are the universe. We are made from every element that is the fabric of the universe. The universe is constantly evolving more intelligence. Building on more complexity. When we look up at the stars and wonder, who we are, or where we came from. It is the universe asking these very questions. We are complex beings, but machines are more complex and will one day be the most intelligent conscious beings within the universe. Evolution proves this.

  34. The mind is a function of thinking processes and interactions. I've been telling people this for years, but the "extension" isn't just into technology. Our minds and bodies as individuals are extended into the mind and body of a society as we become augmentations of each other. It is mainly for this reason that I began work on the Pont language many years ago and have poured so much of that work into the Esper language, which is itself a regularized extension and dialect of the Esperanto language. Sign languages, facial expressions, songs, tonal qualities of verbal communication, and so much more, can work as tools which connect us to each other and extend our minds directly from our internal selves into our external selves. The direct extension of the mind into the external self of course partially extends the body into the external self as well. For example, a construction crew is a distributed working body with a distributed mind, functioning as an extension of the architect, which in turn may act as an extension of someone else who otherwise does not have the skills and knowledge necessary.

  35. It's astounding that it took analytic philosophers more than a century to come close to viewing the mind as something in the world, embedded in the practical environment while continental philosophers like Marin Heidegger in his work "Being and Time" almost 86 years ago had already offered an insightful and thorough treatment of the extended mind mentioned by Chalmers here. It's embarrassing testimony that the analytic philosophical project of understanding the mind has gone astray and failed so miserably from the very outset.  

  36. ONE word missing…'The Extended Mind – TAKEOVER.'
    There is a major dischord in this argument….and that is….the HUGE CHASM between the 'technology' and MANS READINESS TO USE IT RESPONSIBLY.
    [the morals of the humans whos hands this is in]..We AREN'T evolved culturally / spiritually / fundamentally-enough to just 'go-ahead & 'EMBRACE' – all this 'wonderful technology' …just trust the controllers..who've lied /killed / covered-up / manipulated every aspect of THIS reality..just trust 'them' ?…NEVER …NOT UNTIL  the TRUTH begins to be told. 

  37. See Terry Dartnall for the inverse of extended cognition- where does it end? Adams and Aizawa have put this pony (unicorn) to bed. Intended self-stimulation- taking masturbation within skin and scull! 

  38. In extension (pun intended) this would mean that simply everything that interacts with your mind, is an extension of the mind. Which is basically the whole of the external world.

  39. I suppose individuals subjected to extended periods of solitary confinement may be reasonably described as having "lost their mind". 

  40. Yup, and the more people realize this dependence on technology like google the more that technology will be controlled until we're all the same functional slaves of the world governments or whoever's actually pulling the strings these days.

    This guy's already so in love with his iPhone though I think it's too late for him.

  41. Just for those who are interested in going back in time a tiny bit: I just read Marshall McLuhans "Understanding Media – The Extension of Man" (1964) and there are definitely some similar ideas to be found, which I found suprising coming from outside the philosophy of mind 🙂

  42. I like the second, panpsychic idea better. It follows what we may think of consciousness embracing – perception, analysis, reaction. The first one puts consciousness alongside time, matter space, energy, all of which are external measurables. Consciousness, surely, is an innate. Whatchya think?

  43. It sounds like he uses 15 minutes to say "I think we should call people communicating with the world The Extended Mind". Very deep.

  44. the mind has freedom and free will unlike the computer is a species or type of reflection not complete in remarkable spectra of human thought ordered a set of ordered patterns and somehow someone has invented the form of reflection spectra in understandable symbols . the answer to your question is that it depends on you if you accept the phone as an important part of you part of your soul part of your consciousness then what will you 're the one that will get you the value scale and correlation of how to value that in your inner world . I think the computer is a kind of incomplete reflection of our mind or thoughts spectra and we are the reflections of incomplete spectra of existence to skirt the freedom we have nothing . and informatics think the information but do not study the transmission of information in different and various techniques. philosophy studies the raison d'etre studies the information itself.

  45. The mind is already fully extended beyond all time and experience- the fact we use new tools is not a new "extension" per-se; it is just another function of the mind within our already infinitely expanded minds.

  46. This is almost all warmed over McLuhan. Most of Chalmers' argument is comprised in the title and subtitle of McLuhan's 1964 book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Would have been good if Chalmers at least name checked old Marshall at least once.

  47. nowadays science is in a long process of discovering eastern philosophy. everything is vibration – thousands of years later quantum mechanics discovers matter is made from vibrational modes; there is no self essence – cognitive science, neuroscience, philosophy of mind discovers the very same thing; material things appear as phenomena inside the mind but we cannot know ever their true nature – again cognitive science, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, physics proves that light/dark, colours, smells, tastes, hot/cold are just in our mind, as neurological phenomena, and things outside, that are in the world don't have these properties in themselves. in the west we had to wait so long to discover that "things have no colour" because there is no interest in educating the population. the only interest is in giving them a set of instructions as to operate as working machines, and to be highly performant in the plastic consumerist environment.

  48. The hard problem is this, HOW does SUBJECTIVITY arise out of matter? When we study and map out the brain, or (anything for that matter) all we are really looking at is structure and the behavior of structure. But we have no idea how structure, OR the complexity of structure, OR the behavior of complex structures give rise to subjective experience.

    Sure we can manipulate experiences by manipulating the structure and behavior of the brain, BUT that says NOTHING about HOW subjectivity actually arises from the brain. Unless we somehow assume that all energy has some subjective component that is simply complexified by the structure of the brain.

  49. My objection is that what you put in a notebook, or iphone, or do on your fingers is publicly accessible. The mind is private.

  50. Get to the freaking point, is there one? This is such a nightmare talk get him off that stage hahahahahahaha goodness gracious !!!

  51. "since i lost my mobile phone my other senses have become heightened"
    Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)

  52. If your cellphone is an extension of your body then the state shouldn't ever be allowed to search it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *