We are accustomed to thinking of technology as a tool: something we\ncreate, use, and therefore control. But perhaps the problem lies\nprecisely in that assumption. Technology does not only do things for us;\nsilently, it can also change the way we work, pay attention, remember,\nchoose, and even think. We are not merely using technology. We are\nliving inside an environment increasingly shaped by it.<\/p>\n
If so, the more fundamental question is no longer what technology can\ndo, but what technology does to human beings. As screens, algorithms,\nsearch engines, and artificial intelligence become ever more part of\ndaily life, is it possible that what is changing is not only the way we\nwork and learn, but also the way we understand the world\u2014even the way we\nunderstand ourselves?<\/p>\n
GENEALOGY OF TECHNOLOGY: FROM BODY TO MIND<\/p>\n
This change is part of the long journey of modernity. Since the\nRenaissance, human beings have increasingly trusted reason and\ncreativity to understand and transform the world. The scientific\nrevolution expanded observation, machines strengthened bodily power, and\nthe industrial revolution accelerated production. Trains, vehicles, and\naeroplanes shortened distances; the telephone overcame the limits of\nspace; computers sped up information processing. The internet then made\nknowledge almost instantaneous, while search engines shortened the\ndistance between question and answer. Now, AI is taking technology into\na different territory: not only assisting the hands, the body, or\nmemory, but also the work long considered most distinctively\nhuman\u2014thinking.<\/p>\n
This change is not inherently bad. Books, libraries, archives, and\nthe internet are ways human beings extend memory and knowledge beyond\nthemselves. Yet when almost anything is available in an instant, our\nhabits change too: from remembering to searching, from reading to\nscanning, from choosing to accepting recommendations. We grow\nincreasingly accustomed to information that is fast, concise, and\nmeasurable.<\/p>\n
Even ignorance begins to feel like something that must be overcome\nimmediately. Yet \u2018I do not know\u2019 is the beginning of a question;\nquestions give rise to inquiry; and inquiry requires time. The problem\nis not simply that technology makes life easier, but whether, in\novercoming human limitations, technology is slowly changing the way\nhuman beings use their own minds.<\/p>\n
WHEN TECHNOLOGY SHAPES THE ENVIRONMENT<\/p>\n
That change becomes ever more apparent when technology is no longer\nmerely a tool, but also the environment in which we think. Gradually, we\nbecome accustomed to searching rather than remembering, scanning rather\nthan reading, accepting recommendations rather than exploring, measuring\nrather than interpreting, and pursuing certainty rather than dwelling in\nuncertainty. When those habits persist, technology does not only change\nwhat we do, but also shapes the way we understand the world.<\/p>\n
We grow increasingly familiar with digital logic: input, process,\noutput, choice, score, and ranking. This logic is indeed useful, but\nhuman life cannot entirely be treated as an algorithmic problem. The\nmost efficient is not necessarily the most humane; the most popular is\nnot necessarily the most worthy; the most measurable is not necessarily\nthe most meaningful.<\/p>\n
AI takes this change to a new stage. If previously technology helped\nstore, search, and choose, now AI begins to interpret, analyse, compose,\nand even generate ideas. We no longer merely say, \u2018Find me information,\u2019\nbut begin to say, \u2018Think about this for me.\u2019 What we delegate is no\nlonger merely work, but part of our cognitive labour.<\/p>\n
Herein lies the problem: when machines become increasingly capable of\ndoing the work of thinking, do we still use our minds to determine what\nis true, worthy, and meaningful?<\/p>\n
COGITO, ERGO SUM<\/p>\n
That question brings us back to Ren\u00e9 Descartes. Four centuries ago,\nthrough doubt, he found one certainty: when he doubted, he was thinking;\nand because he was thinking, he existed. Cogito, ergo sum\u2014I think,\ntherefore I am. Descartes did not say, \u2018I have answers, therefore I am.\u2019\nWhat is fundamental is not the answer, but the act of thinking itself.\nHaving an answer does not always mean having experienced the process of\nthinking that produced it.<\/p>\n
AI can help search for information, test ideas, and arrange\npossibilities. The problem arises when AI is used not to help thinking,\nbut so that we do not need to think. Using a calculator to help with\narithmetic is different from not understanding what is being calculated;\nlikewise, using AI to expand the mind is different from surrendering the\nmind to it.<\/p>\n
Therefore, in the age of AI, what needs to be preserved is not merely\nthe ability to produce answers, but also the ability to question, doubt,\nweigh, decide, and take responsibility. What matters more is not whether\nmachines can think, but whether human beings still want to think when\nmachines can do it for us. This issue does not stop at philosophy. It\nbrings us to a very practical question: how do we ensure that technology\nremains a tool for education, rather than the reverse?<\/p>\n
PEDAGOGICAL COMPASS<\/p>\n
The smarter technology becomes, the more important it is that we have\ndirection. AI can offer many possibilities, but it does not determine\nwhat education is for. Therefore, at Sekolah Sukma Bangsa, vision,\nmission, and goals must serve as a pedagogical compass in every\ndecision: what is taught, how it is taught, and what technology is used.\nTeachers need not first ask, \u2018What can AI do?\u2019, but rather, \u2018What kind\nof human being do we want to cultivate?\u2019. Only from there is technology\nchosen as a tool. Determine the direction first, then choose the tool.\nDo not let the tool determine the direction.<\/p>\n
Technology need not be feared, but it must be placed within limits\nthat we set. Every capability we surrender to machines risks becoming a\ncapability we use less and less. Therefore, the problem is not how smart\ntechnology is, but whether human beings can still determine what that\nintelligence is used for. Four centuries after Descartes said cogito,\nergo sum, the phrase finds new meaning: I think, therefore I am. Amid\nthe growing intelligence of machines, this phrase reminds us that human\nbeings must remain subjects: thinking, setting direction, and taking\nresponsibility.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/technology-shapes-reason-1788735031", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }