Foundations and Trends R in Web Science Minds Online: The Interface between Web Science, Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind Suggested Citation: Paul Smart, Robert Clowes and Richard Heersmink (2017), “Minds Online: The Interface between Web Science, Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind”, Foundations and Trends R in Web Science: Vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp 1–232. DOI: 10.1561/1800000026. Paul Smart University of Southampton [email protected] Robert Clowes Universidade Nova de Lisboa [email protected] Richard Heersmink Macquarie University [email protected] This article may be used only for the purpose of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without ex- plicit Publisher approval. Boston — Delft Contents 1 Introduction3 2 Cognition, Cognitive Science and Cognitive Ecologies7 2.1 What is Cognition?..................... 7 2.2 Cognitive Science, Philosophy and the Web........ 12 2.3 Varieties of Cognition.................... 16 2.4 The Web as a Cognitive Ecology.............. 30 3 Embodied Cognition 31 3.1 Embodied Interaction.................... 32 3.2 Shaping the Body...................... 33 3.3 Corporeal Extension..................... 36 3.4 The Wearable Web..................... 40 3.5 Measurable Me....................... 42 3.6 The Quantified Cognizer.................. 46 4 Extended Cognition 48 4.1 Web-Extended Minds.................... 49 4.2 Trusting The Web...................... 59 4.3 Dimensions of Cognitive Integration............ 64 4.4 Extended Memory...................... 68 4.5 Extended Knowers...................... 75 4.6 Supersized Knowers?.................... 79 4.7 Privacy Implications of the Web-Extended Mind...... 83 5 Embedded Cognition 86 5.1 The Cognitive Commons.................. 87 5.2 The Real World Web.................... 89 5.3 Programmable Worlds.................... 93 5.4 Embed with the Web?.................... 98 5.5 Extended vs. Embedded: Does It Matter?......... 100 6 Social Cognition 111 6.1 Person Perception...................... 113 6.2 Social Bots.......................... 117 6.3 Social Influence....................... 119 6.4 Social Brains, Extended Minds............... 124 7 Collective Cognition 129 7.1 Socio-Cognitive Circuits................... 130 7.2 Social Feedback....................... 135 7.3 Collaborative Construction................. 136 7.4 Social Machines....................... 141 7.5 Knowledge Engines..................... 143 7.6 Leaning on the (Social) Environment............ 149 7.7 Mandevillian Intelligence.................. 155 8 Extending the Butterfly 159 8.1 Cognitive Connections.................... 161 8.2 Boundary Dissolution.................... 164 8.3 Augmented Cognition?................... 167 8.4 Web Epistemology...................... 169 8.5 Ecological Engineering.................... 172 9 Conclusion 177 Acknowledgements 179 References 180 Minds Online: The Interface between Web Science, Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind Paul Smart1, Robert Clowes2 and Richard Heersmink3 1University of Southampton, [email protected] 2Universidade Nova de Lisboa; [email protected] 3Macquarie University; [email protected] ABSTRACT Alongside existing research into the social, political and eco- nomic impacts of the Web, there is a need to study the Web from a cognitive and epistemic perspective. This is particu- larly so as new and emerging technologies alter the nature of our interactive engagements with the Web, transforming the extent to which our thoughts and actions are shaped by the online environment. Situated and ecological approaches to cognition are relevant to understanding the cognitive sig- nificance of the Web because of the emphasis they place on forces and factors that reside at the level of agent–world in- teractions. In particular, by adopting a situated or ecological approach to cognition, we are able to assess the significance of the Web from the perspective of research into embodied, extended, embedded, social and collective cognition. The results of this analysis help to reshape the interdisciplinary configuration of Web Science, expanding its theoretical and Paul Smart, Robert Clowes and Richard Heersmink (2017), “Minds Online: The Interface between Web Science, Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind”, Foundations and Trends R in Web Science: Vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp 1–232. DOI: 10.1561/1800000026. 2 empirical remit to include the disciplines of both cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. 1 Introduction Ever since its inception as a specialized area of scientific enquiry, Web Science has been conceived as a discipline that benefits from (and per- haps depends upon) various forms of interdisciplinary engagement [44, 45, 235, 428]. Although it is perhaps easy to think of the World Wide Web (hereafter simply the Web) as a purely technological system—one which involves the use of protocols, formalisms and software algorithms to support the exchange of information across a global computational network—there is clearly a sense in which the Web is more than just a collection of technological elements. In particular, the Web is as much a social phenomenon as it is a technological one,1 and this alters the theoretical and empirical remit of Web Science, expanding its scope to include topics that fall within the orbit of the social, psychological and 1It is perhaps more appropriate to see the Web as a socio-technical phenomenon, rather than a purely social or technological one. From the perspective of Web Science, the Web is typically conceived as a socio-technical system: one that features complex forms of interaction and inter-dependence between individuals, technology and society [368]. Web Science recognizes that technological innovation on the Web may impact society, perhaps giving rise to new forms of social interaction and engagement. However, it also recognizes that technological innovation occurs against a sociological and psychological backdrop: a backdrop that includes, among other things, moral and ethical codes, legal constraints, social conventions and human cognitive capabilities. 3 4 Introduction Computer Science Computability De-centralized Information Systems Semantic Web Mathematics Web Process Calculus… Economics Theory of graphs Engineering Artificial Theory of Markets Networks Protocols Macro and Micro economics Statistics Architectures Intelligence Auction models Game Theory… Accessibility Knowledge Representation Types of capital… Security Languages Resilience… Inference Bayesian Methods Law Psychology Agent-Based Computing… Intellectual Property EU/regulatory drivers Social attitudes Public engages vs indifferent Cognitive properties Corporate social Human Information Processing Socio-Cultural responsibility… Environmental Methods… Values, attitudes and lifestyles: fast trends Biology Anti-corporate Open source values Media Evolution dynamics Sociology Social attitudes New trust matrix: NGOs Fragmented public media Systems biology Ethical consumers and discourse Plasticity… Theory of groups Social networks Demography Single issue moral panics Plume Tracing… Smart mobs Ecology Mobile opinion formers… Structure of ecosystems Ecosystem Productivity Population Dynamics Digital Biosphere… Figure 1.1: The Web Science Butterfly Diagram (http://www.webscience.org/). cultural sciences. Some insight into the interdisciplinary nature of Web Science is provided by the so-called Web Science Butterfly Diagram, which represents an early attempt to map out those areas where the interests and concerns of Web Science converge with those of other disciplines (see Figure 1.1). A particular set of disciplines are typically seen as relevant to Web Science. Writing in 2008, for example, Hendler et al. [235] suggest that Web Science establishes contact with the disciplines of mathematics, computer science, artificial intelligence, sociology, psychology, biology and economics. Interestingly, philosophy and cognitive science—the disciplinary targets of the present review—are absent from this list. This does not, of course, mean that philosophy and cognitive science are irrelevant to Web Science. Indeed, Hendler et al. [235] encourage researchers to expand the disciplinary reach of Web Science by expli- cating the links with other disciplines. This is, in fact, one of the aims of the present review. In particular, we seek to highlight areas where 5 the interests of cognitively-minded scientists and philosophers start to converge with those who seek to study and understand the Web. From a cognitive science perspective, the Web raises important issues concerning the nature of both human and machine intelligence. A particular focus of interest relates to the effect of the Web on human cognitive capabilities [81], especially those that relate to mnemonic func- tioning [472], reading [174], and social cognition [160]. Another point of interest concerns the Web’s ability to support the emergence of hybrid information processing ensembles that combine the capabilities of both humans and machines. This is where the recent interest in a number of Web-based socio-cognitive phenomena—e.g., collective intelligence [322], collective problem-solving [350], collective sensemaking [284] and col- lective creativity [557]—start to converge with well-established areas of cognitive scientific research, especially with the study of distributed cognitive systems [254]. In addition to the points of contact with cognitive science, the