Is augmentation somehow inauthentic? AKA Stop teaching for a deserted island.

I really think we need to stop teaching for the deserted islands of the world. If a field of study requires detailed instructions, formulas, or other information, then practitioners in the "real world" either remember what's necessary b/c they use it all the time or they look it up. How many of these practitioners, were they stuck on a deserted island, would be called upon to use what they have to look up?

Our brains are augmented now. This fact and trend is probably not going to reverse. If it does, we'll revert if we have to. We'll adapt. Are we who are trapped in the inertia of traditional educational over-stressing the value of what unaugmented brains can do because we aren't sure how to assess the information universe our students have at their finger(thumb)tips to tap into? Are our trusted systems only designed to assess quanta (what can be known), not actions (what can be done)?

Is this powering the slow but steady transition toward things like mastery-based learning and assessment tasks? Is it competency-based? How about portfolio-based? 

I just have a bunch of questions tonight. All answers (and additional questions) welcome.