This article was automatically translated from the original Turkish version.
Merleau-Ponty’s expression focuses on a central point regarding how we experience the world. Here, Ponty argues that for the blind man, the cane is no longer an object but rather an integral part of his being. Our experience of the world, our situatedness within it, and our capacity to act within it are always mediated through tools. This is why the limbs of virtuosos and master craftsmen extend; their instruments and tools become parts of their bodies. For the painter, the brush in his hand becomes his eleventh finger. He now exists in the world with an extended body. The body reaches into the world through tools. The carpenter’s saw is not merely a functional device for cutting wood; it has become a limb that shapes his understanding of the world. Moreover, this phenomenon is not limited to skilled artisans. Each of us now extends into the world through our smartwatches, smartphone cameras, navigation apps, and many other tools.
These technologies, introduced into our lives based on the utility they provide, herald a subtle but profound transformation that is rarely examined in detail. Marathon runner Crouse touches on precisely this phenomenon of bodily externalization in an article he wrote for the New York Times several years ago.2 He speaks of relying on his smartwatch for years to measure physical indicators such as heart rate during training. Yet the watch’s sophistication goes beyond this. The device, which also tracks sleep patterns, body temperature, metabolic rate, and many other variables, has become an inseparable part of Crouse’s athletic journey. He no longer needs to exert extra effort to maintain bodily awareness. This small device has replaced his internal awareness—his inner perception and intuitive bodily knowledge.
The widespread use of artificial intelligence tools and their rapid ongoing development also suggest other forms of this extension. This evolution does not merely expand the boundaries of mind or body; it also transforms the individual’s experience of self, relationship with time, decision-making processes, and even capacity for value creation.
Consider two different individuals. Let one be named Ahmet and the other Mehmet. Both plan to attend a Turkish music concert at the end of the month. Mehmet suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Consequently, he writes down everything he does or needs to remember in a notebook he carries in his pocket. Thus, the date of the concert and the name of the concert hall are written in the middle of his notebook.
Ahmet, by contrast, has a strong memory. When he first heard about the concert, he stored the name of the concert hall in his mind, remembers the date, and can retrieve this information whenever needed. Both leave their homes to go to the same concert hall. Ahmet consults his memory. Mehmet opens his notebook. They both walk in the same direction. From an external perspective, there is no discernible difference between them.
It appears that Mehmet’s notebook has become an extension of his mind. Because this notebook:
Is continuous: Mehmet always writes this kind of information into it and never moves without it.Is accessible: Since he carries it in his pocket, he can access it at any moment.Is automatically endorsed: He accepts the information written in it without questioning it.
In this context, Ahmet’s mind and Mehmet’s notebook appear to serve the same function. Can we then say that the mind cannot be reduced solely to what is inside the skull? It seems that external objects, as in Mehmet’s case, can also be part of the mind. While Ahmet’s mind operates internally, Mehmet’s operates externally.
This experimental example recalls the Extended Mind3 thesis for those familiar with contemporary philosophical debates. Clark and Chalmers, whose work has had significant impact on the philosophy of technology and mind, propose this approach not merely as a philosophical argument but as a radical challenge to how mental activity is structured in the technological age. For instance, is a student’s reasoning capacity limited solely to their brain when using a calculator? Or should the computational capacity provided by the calculator be regarded as part of their mental extension?
When we apply the extended mind framework to the present day, we see that smartphones play a role similar to Mehmet’s notebook. For most users, the smartphone functions as a “second brain.” These devices are cognitive tools that are constantly consulted (continuity) and are nearly always within reach (accessibility). Many of us do not act without first consulting our phones. It has become routine to check a map app rather than recall an address. This shift is not merely a weakening of cognitive abilities; it is a transformation of our entire processes of decision-making, action, and thought.
In our digital age, the penetration of cognitive technologies into our lives sometimes reaches depths we fail to notice. Clark notes that new user-friendly and responsive technologies have significantly blurred the boundary between mind and world. The machines, tools, codes, and semi-intelligent everyday objects surrounding us are causing our minds and identities to become increasingly intertwined with a matrix of non-biological tools. So much so that it is becoming increasingly difficult to say “where the world ends and the person begins.” This observation gains further meaning with the integration of artificial intelligence and embedded systems into daily life. Through the Internet of Things (IoT), our homes and cities are becoming intelligent; wearable technologies provide real-time data streams to our bodies; and artificial intelligences learn our behaviors to adapt to us. The relationship between the human mind and the surrounding digital network is evolving into a mutual dovetailing. As we adapt to tools, the tools adapt to us, transforming these instruments into inseparable mental apparatuses.
Thanks to Clark and Chalmers’ Extended Mind theory, we recognize that a phone contact list can, in a sense, function as an extension of our memory, or that an AI-powered assistant can become part of our cognitive processes. These transformations demonstrate that technological objects can integrate into our body-mind unity. A smart device, like the cane of a blind person, can become a sensory and cognitive limb through which we access the world.
The relationship between the human mind and artificial intelligence represents the most recent stage in humanity’s long history of tool use. Just as language, writing, print media, and computers transformed our minds in the past, artificial intelligence now heralds a similar transformation. Therefore, rather than viewing artificial intelligence entirely as a threat or as a completely neutral tool, it is crucial to understand the “extended minds” we are forming alongside it.
The extended mind perspective allows us to evaluate AI systems as complementary components of the human mind, yet this raises new questions regarding responsibility, subjectivity, and identity. When we entrust part of our mind to an external artificial system, although our speed of information access and problem-solving capacity increase, our traditional conception of “self” becomes blurred.
In the final analysis, we must neither reject the interaction between the human mind and technology with a naive fear nor glorify it uncritically. Instead, guided by phenomenology and the philosophy of mind, we must attempt to redefine where the human mind ends and where technology begins. Human technological evolution shows us that we must view our minds not as static, purely biological entities, but as dynamic, evolving, and extending processes shaped by their environment. Understanding and guiding the cognitive partnerships we form with artificial intelligence will be decisive for both our philosophical comprehension and the future of humanity.
Does My Mind Extend into the World?
