In this chapter of The Shallows Carr once again wows with his historical connections. This chapter goes deep into the inner workings of the brain. He references several different researchers over the last few hundred years that have spent time studying the brain and how it works. He specifically targets research on memory. He then connects this research to the Net and attempts to prove why the Net gets in the way of us forming new memories and has made our memories more inept.
Carr begins his chapter by referencing Socrates, who he had previously quoted as being skeptical of the written word.
Carr credits Socrates’ idea, but says it was not the written word that ended up causing this ruin, but the Net. He quotes an Italian novelist and scholar, Umberto Eco, “Books provide a supplement to memory, but they also, as Eco puts it, ‘challenge and improve memory; they do not narcotize it.’” (Carr 2010).
He concludes that the written word and books, have been good for our brain, and he attempts to prove whey the Net is not.
Throughout the readings I have felt a stronger connection to Carr’s cautiousness regarding the internet. However, in this chapter I feel like he is being overly critical. I am not saying that he does not make good points. His research seems sound, but I wonder if it is worth dwelling on the negatives of the Net and how it negatively affects our brain or if instead he should try to find ways to use the Net to our advantage. Whether that means figuring out, through research, how to get our brain to make the memory connections that we may be losing out on from relying on the Net for memory, or if there are other connection we can make in our brain to make up for the ones we may be losing out on? It seems Carr’s answer to this question would be no, and he may be right, but since the internet is here to stay, it seems that his focus on the downfall the Net may bring to our brain, may not be worth his time and effort.
I was fascinated by all of the inner workings of our brain that Carr explains; it brought me back to my college days of studying biology. I had some of the memory sparks that Carr describes when reading a lot of the descriptions of how the brain works in fact! Much of the research Carr gives over is about how the brain forms new anatomical, not just chemical, connections when making memories and moving them between short term and long term memory.
He holds that if we are not using the parts of our brain for our memory we are then losing out on the creation of these new synapses, which will ultimately be detrimental to our overall memory capabilities,
One point Carr does make that stands out to me and relates back to Artificial Intelligence is that AI cannot replicate the kind of memory we have. Yes, AI can remember everything we need it to, but what makes us unique is that our memories change with our experiences and we continue to process information and use it when having subsequent experiences.
This is interesting because before I thought the biggest distinction between AI and humans was our emotional capabilities, but here is something else, our memories and the plasticity of our brain that might be a much bigger difference that Prensky and Singularity movement do not seem to give credit to.
I think my favorite metaphor, or historical perspective that Carr quotes is by the Roman Seneca. I think it culminates Carr’s point well, that the brain is ever changing, but I also think it is a really beautiful description of how our memories work and affect us. 
I just wonder if Carr has become too cynical of the Net. He acknowledges the Webs ability to seemingly pull off the connections our brain makes, and store the material that our brain can. But he holds strongly to the idea that our brain, being a living organic entity is capable of much more, but needs the memory making ability to stay intact.
In Carr’s digression at the end of chapter nine he does admit that although he harbors much skepticism and negativity- he may not be able to live without the Web! And I don’t think that there would be too many people who could disagree with that sentiment either.
Carr, N. G. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton.(Kindle)
~I have found that I do like reading for an assignment like this on the computer. Although it is still a little harder on my eyes and I find that I have to dim the screen. However, it is really nice to be able to highlight text and take notes all in one place. It makes it so easy to turn my thoughts into a post.
I do however miss a book. I feel like it took me a while to get a general sense of what the book is really about. Whereas when I have an actual book in my hand to flip through and hold, I feel like I have a better sense of what I will be reading. I just really like the feeling of holding a book and reading it and I like to see my progress through a book as well. The visual of seeing your progress through book does not really translate well to books on a computer.
rebeccaaf 
Rebecca, I also find myself being cautious regarding the internet and the information I do or do not put out there. However, I also think the internet is here to stay. So rather than being so negative about the net, as Carr seems to be, we should instead try to understand the positive and negative aspects so we know how to use it for what we need. Perhaps this is what Carr is trying to do in his own negative way.