From Lab to Living Room: Transhumanist Imaginaries of Consumer Brain Wave Monitors

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Version of Record: Gardner, Paula, and Wray, Britt (2013). From Lab to Living Room: Transhumanist Imaginaries of Consumer Brain Wave Monitors. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, No.3. doi:10.7264/N3GQ6VP4

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Paula Gardner
Britt Wray

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Abstract

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Consumer EEG monitors reflect assumptions and biases of computational theories of the mind (CMT) and a reference a legacy of quick fix consumer grade biometric devices that deflate and reduce complex science. They promise great effect and even human advancement, with little effort and minimal understanding on behalf of a wide range of users. The marketing discourses attached to the EEG monitors employ gender, CMT, and cultural obsessions with data to sell these devices as expert science tools, easily transposable to the living room, and suggesting brain wave data surveillance as a common everyday activity. The paper analyses the epistemological assumptions residing in EEG marketing discourses, to argue that consumer grade biometric devices promise a transhumanist future to consumers. These cheap tools are venues for ongoing neoliberal consumer work toward enhanced human cognition, via biodata collection and repurposing.

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0  

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Authors:

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Paula Gardner, Associate Professor at OCAD University in Toronto, Ontario is a Media Studies/Science and Technology scholar, documentary filmmaker and media art maker. Her critical written and research creation work seeks to help users acquire agency with technologies via hands on practice, and aesthetic inquiry.

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Britt Wray is a Biologist turned artist, and recent MFA graduate of OCAD University. Her radio and sculptural art practice queries ‘biotechnically driven change in the human and non-human living world’, pursuing the ways in which the realm of science –presumed to stand as an untouched space of pure objectivity–is intertwined with art, politics, and society.

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0  

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Introduction

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 1 Advances in small components manufacturing have recently given rise to small industries offering a range of biometric devices to consumers, researchers, and DIY or “do-it-yourself” communities. These devices now include EEG or brain wave monitors, marketed as easily accessible, user friendly, affordable equipment, for use by broad markets of users in research, health care delivery, fitness, home system management, gaming and as DIY tools for artists. Ultimately, these are data collection tools, made for a range of purposes, meant for a range of intended and yet to be discovered practices.  Data collection is a key feature enticing consumers to buy. An enormous range of consumer grade biometric monitoring devices invite us to self-surveil our: fitness progress, health maladies, physical therapy successes, and mood shifts, and to then collect and disseminate or even repurpose this data.

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Popular today are a variety of heart rate and other fitness monitors and more advanced devices like the Nike+ Ipod sensor working with your Nike shoe to track your time, distance, and pace. More advanced, the Nike “Fuelband”, tracks varied metrics (calories burned, steps taken, jacks jumped, etc.), revealing one’s exercise productivity or comparing it with your exercise partner, while also sending inspirational messages.  In addition to this expansive array of sports equipment, biometric monitors track health metrics and send them directly to medical personnel. New EEG (brainwave monitors) are both a logical step forward for consumers engaged in personal data collection and a curiously marketed opportunity, revealing a host of odd cultural priorities.

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 gardner image 1 garnder image 2

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 The Nike Fuel Band and Nike Sensor

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 1 Research trajectories and university and science lab funding trends the past decade celebrate data collection and processing as a to enhanced future societies, while computational theory is noted as the method best able to collect, process and employ data of subjects and communities.  Information gained from the body, referred to as bioinformatics, is key to a range of culturally valued biomedical projects– genome projects, the study of stem cells, gene targeting and drug development, medical diagnostics, and genetic medicine generally. (Thacker, 2003)  Biometric devices can be seen as downgraded versions of bioinformatic research projects that bring to a personal level the idea that data accounts for the body, and more, that “the body can be generated through data.” (Thacker 2003, p 12),  Biometric devices promise, for example, an ability to predict and thus enhance or alter the body in the aim of a future where risk, health, prosperity are managed. In other words, biometric devices suggest that our personal future progress hinges on not only biotechnological augmentation, but personal data surveillance and purposing.

17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 In this context, the sale of data collection devices for consumers is an important cultural practice–one that invites consumers to take part in data collection, as always already a good, and productive practice. The marketing resonates, as will be shown, carefully with common science stories where biotechnology features as idealized narratives of improved futures and as a citizen responsibility.  In this context, then, it is unsurprising that tools once relegated to the science laboratory are invited into our living rooms for personal use.  This shift suggests changes in how consumers appear to be interested in pulling, viewing and using data off their bodies, and how we accepted associated, highly reductionist and illogical theories of body systems as told by marketing strategies and visual representations produced by these biometric devices.

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 We seek to understand these shifts by analyzing the varied marketing discourses employed to sell consumer grade brain wave (EEG) monitors to a broad consumer-researcher population.  We are interested in this lab to living room shift, because it veers away from the usual routing of science instruments to schools and public science festivals. This expansion into divergent spaces constitutes a significant practice that reflects a host of concurrent cultural technology trends: neoliberalist desires for quick fixes, a growing desire of self-computational wearable and mobile devices, common discourses linking data collection to human progress, and reductionist consumer science discourses that present the body and mind as segmented, coherent, modular systems.  These strong currents situate environments in which consumers and hackers come to believe that biometric devices offer biodata that can and should be purposed to other productive ends. In so doing, consumers are situated to easily overlook marketing strategies that overdetermine the scant value of the data, and repurpose it for strange ends, creating new science fictions of the personal work we should undertake toward human progress.

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Any study of how media practice intersects with the production of cultural science knowledges requires the melding of Media Studies and STS (Science and Technology Studies)–an approach few scholars have employed.  Kember and Zylinska (2012) argue that we need to move beyond the media object to address the linked technical, social and biological processes by which we mediate the meaning of new media forms. The work of locating the discursive epistemological crossings from biological and social self to the consuming and augmented self (regularly using smart phone, Ipad, kindle, iPod, or sports grade biometric devices) thus presents a methodological challenge.   Kember and Zylinska enjoin media studies scholars to link the creative and the critical to track and analyze the multiple flows across these mediations.

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 We begin to take up this challenge, inquiring into how marketing strategies for biometric devices present science imaginaries that resonate with distinct cultural discourses and practices of targeted users via creative marketing practice. We focus on textual and visual marketing discourses designed to sell a range of popular brain wave monitors or EEG (electroencephalography) devices, formerly seconded to science labs and hospitals but now marketed to: university labs for cognition research, gamers, early adopting consumers for functional uses such as home entertainment system operation, to education professionals to aid learning, and finally to artists and DYI users in hack labs for experimentation. Our analytical lens places this marketing strategy within normative consumer science culture discourses, the everyday cultural practices of these users, and broader North American cultural ideals, deeply bound to capitalist ideals in this post-information, globalization era. We focus on understanding how these marketing techniques tie in with an apparent desire for personal data surveillance devices to collect, and visualize our personal data, to obtain information of our body/self, and more importantly, to use it in novel, productive ways.

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0  

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 Data infatuation in Liquid Times

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 Given the broad market appealed to in these ads, it is insufficient to examine biometric devices as the most recent technology of self-care that works via biopower. Instead, the marketing strategy pulls upon and reifies a web of interfeeding, normative cultural values.  Biopower logically adheres cultural norms together in brain wave monitor discourse and imagery–it binds biometric commodities with DYI cultures of free labour, neoliberalist values,  data infatuation, and popular reductionist science fictions.  Our cultural practices are (now) deeply implicated with technologies (Haraway 1990), the age of the cyborg is post and we are living in the early days of machine augmentation–mobile and wearable devices collect, store, an communicate our feelings, moods, and biometric data–for a range of communication, health and art purposes.   Biometric commodities only make sense within what Bauman terms this “liquid” period of modernity (2007), where globalisation has created insecurity, uncertainty, and a personal and collective sense of impotence. [1]  Bauman tells us: society is increasingly viewed not as a structure but as a network, — a ‘matrix of random connections and disconnections.’  Therein, interhuman bonds become increasingly frail and temporary, and values of division and competition win out. In these constantly changing environments, individuals are to meet constantly changing conditions with free choice, requiring flexibility and the acceptance of higher levels of risk. Virtue is not consistency but a readiness to change tactics, abandon commitments and exploit opportunities (rather than follow preferences.)  (Bauman 1990, 3-4)

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 1 In that environment, quick fixes become not only virtues, but responsibilities and requirements for future survival.  A range of scholars (Hayles, Rose, Thacker) suggest that new biotechnological for servicing self-responsibility and self-care via are increasingly computational.  As Turkel has shown, computational devices (e.g. the computer) are one component in the history of self-care technologies. (1984).  EEG devices, while clearly computational, are also deeply inscribed in key popular science fictions that reduce complexity to manageable modular systems and resound with imperatives for self care, increasingly presenting computation as a reliable, albeit invisible solution, that is yet, the link to great, future, productive success.  The following sections seek to unravel the cultural values that undergird these stories, crucially bonding popular fictions to biometric augmentation, to create desire for strange new technologies and their outputs, signified as progress.

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 A final crucial component in this story is the role of labour in the research conducted in the DYI community, by those who produce and offer (to open so urce sites) findings that industry can exploit, whose work verifies these as reliable devices, finally, the work of consumers, who point industry to potential new markets for EEG devices (eg gaming and early adoption practices). As Tiziana Terranova  (2003) argues–the neocapitialist economy must be viewed as a crucial base from which to understand the development of cultural industries and products. Terranova writes “…Cultural and technical labor are not produced by capitalism in any direct, cause-and-effect fashion; that is …they have developed in relation to the expansion of the cultural industries and are part of a process of economic experimentation with the creation of monetary value out of knowledge/culture/affect.”  (ppxx)  While there is a moral imperative to enhance one’s brain, at the same time, there is an equally compelling (moral) imperative among biometric hackers and users to offer the fruits of our labour, for free. In (western) culture, free labour is “pleasurably embraced” and “shamelessly exploited.” (Terranova, p5)  In keeping with old technology practices, new technologies rely on public users as productive subjects, but, differently, they create new forms of production and new ways in which power intersects with knowledge.  (Terranova 2003)

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 1 These cultural flows–our consumptive and productive practices– are key to the sell and purchase of EEG devices. Cultural flows are “displaced and replaced in accordance with current capitalist-qualified, culturally fashionable “norms”  that include varied distribution sites such as music, fashion, and information (Terranova, p 12). To understand this flow, we must identify the threads of western cultural imperatives that typify EEG marketing strategies–to produce data, to labour, to biometrically augment for techno-enhanced futures. The production/consumption flows are key to understanding how the EEG can be sold as an attractive new cultural practice, by resonating with distinct cultural values–neocapitalism, neoliberalist ideals, transhumanist futures, reductive science, and data infatuation.  Understanding cultural flow also helps us to analyse the ‘cultural content of the commodity’ (Terranova, 11) produced in the flow–its output: the cultural products of EEG labour and use.

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0  

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 Common cultural science stories and fictions

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 1 The cultural context that invites us to personally data capture and repurpose it, hinges on the increasingly fragmented, reductive stories consumers have been fed, over the past three decades, as stories of biotechnological advancement by health policy and industry product discourse. These cultural narratives intersect directly with global economic practices, the increasingly heightened value of consumption, and neoliberal imperatives for consumer/producers to be hyperproductive, competitive and to undertake novel, constantly changing forms of self-improvement.

30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 Stories of biotechnological science for consumers tend to be highly reductionist, often aided by visuals that segment body systems from their complex system context. Crucially, such popular science knowledges form the concepts and comparisons that come to constitute our collectively held science knowledge (Fleck, 1979).  As such, visualized consumer science over the past three decades has inculcated incomplete, inexact, and even illogical tales in our collective science consciousness.

31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 Biotechnology narratives in popular consumer health magazines, newspaper health sections, and mainstream TV and radio programs often represent weak and incomplete data as highly detailed information–knowledge that can then predict a subject’s health, wellness, and ability.  Consumer information routinely substitutes stories of modular body systems for complex system stories (Hayles 2011, Macpherson 2011.) These stories ask us to read modularity as complexity, and to overestimate data to mean cause rather than output.  Culturally, we are comfortable with consumer science soundbites –easy to digest bits, in keeping with our quick fix neoliberal culture. [2]

32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 Ubiquitous visuals tend to present “the problem” (e.g. Depression) as beholden to a single noxious problem (brain chemicals), declaring the problem reducible to a single cause. This single noxious problem is fixed, in this story, by drugs like Prozac that are said to fix the brain chemical disorder.  The other elements of the system that might trigger depression- hormones, genetics, poverty, and economic stress, etc.- are eliminated from the narrative.

33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 gardner image 3 gardner image 4

34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 Prozac website, 1996.  Animation of serotonin operating in a “depressed” brain (URL: http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/simpledepress.html)

35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 gardner image 5

36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 Still of affected serotonin process, via Zoloft. (URL: http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/simpledepress.html)

37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 Popular visual renderings, that is, suggest cause and effect where there is no such data–for example that illness is caused by single elements, repairable by single technologies (Gardner 2007), or employ visualisations (eg PET scans–that merely demonstrate blood flow in the brain) to suggest proof of cause for “depressed” or “schizophrenic” brains (Dumit 2004).

38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 The visuals suggest that symptom is cause and are adept at framing mind and body data in isolated activity quadrants that fragment body systems; mood is reduced to brain chemical systems, perception to isolated cognitive systems, and cognitive state to brain wave systems. Because they are quickly accessible, such visuals normalize the extrapolation of data from modular system into tall, overdetermined tales. Scholars have demonstrated the effectiveness of tactics –gendered drug advertising (Metzl 2004), glossed, gendered depression promotion (Gardner 2007), and PET scans (Dumit 2004)– that successfully impress consumers and health professionals with these reductionist logics. This practice teaches a false pedagogy for knowing biological and neurological processes, and works effectively to sell discrete tools to track discrete data (e.g. EEGs and EKGs), and discrete remedies (Prozac /SSRI drugs) to treat alleged single elements effecting modular systems.

39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 2 Biology, the cutting edge of contemporary technoscience, says Sara Kember (2003) is ‘the hegemonic discourse of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries’ (2003: 178). Premises underscoring abundant research into neural networks, the human genome and genetic sequencing, all digest the mind and body into computational, biological entities. (Galloway 2004, Kember and Zylinska 2012), with far reaching effects. [3]  These science tales have become everyday stores, so that consumers see their bodies as computable, and quick solutions to complex biological problems as the work of good citizens. (Rose 2007, Thacker 2004), and impacts how scientists conduct research. Lab research dichotomizes materiality to information, rendering the popular belief that information can capture all essential information about an organism. (Hayles 2002)  Reductionist reasoning is firmly embedded in scientific methods and instruments (Rabinow and Dan-Cohen 2006), and in digital media practice (Fox Keller 1995). The biases cause us to read life as matter (Thacker 2004) so that biometric data comes to replace, in fact, identity (Galloway 2004) and subjectivity (Rose 2007).

40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 Agamben worries that our new biosurveillance practices, or “biological tattooing” manifest Foucault’s concern– that biotechnological slippage into everyday life brings us one step closer to animalism. (Agamben 2004)  In these practices, our subjective body data corresponds with media devices that control and manipulate public speech.  (p2) Agamben charges: “Between these two extremes of a body without words and words without a body, the space we once upon a time called politics is ever more scaled-down and tiny.”  (2004, p2)  At stake is our agility in undertaking politically astute interventions as consumers, artists and scientists with and through devices that capture our own data, frame it as information and transform it into knowledge. At stake is whether, we critically mediate rather than simply embrace reductionist and transhumanist norms in the creation of knowledge of human subjects.

41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0  

42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 Normative Transhumanism

43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 While reductionism is key to this science fiction, code figures prominently in the tale. Eugene Thacker recognizes a “biotech century” of life sciences and medical research characterizing the intersection of genetic and computer “codes.” (2003, p 72)  Transhumanist premises– that technology will improve human by improving upon our designs  –resonate in information society, linking together common cultural practices of computation with stories of science advancement, and biotechnological consumer products. Transhumanist claims align computation across spheres of life, science and consumption, making computation the lowest common denominator uniting these spheres and practices. The reduction of the human body and mind to code is, then, intricately tied marketing stories selling biometric devices, suggesting that data from ourselves can be manipulated in the creation of improved, code-altered, future human subjects.

44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0  

45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 Fictionalizing CTM

46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 While length prohibits a full discussion, it is crucial to recognize that science and lab practices reducing bodily systems into subsections and modular systems rely on computational theories of the mind (CTM).  The approach springs from the work of Alan Turing who in1936 famously produced a computing machine that linked syntax to cause, and could, as such, duplicate human computing processes. A major problem, however, arose in analyzing the mental state of “attitude.”  Philosophers group “attitudes” into two states: occurrent (evident in the object) and dispositional (traits in elements that are not so evident).  The latter are more problematic for computational theories of the mind, as they are difficult to categorize as recurring states or phenomena.  Turing himself saw this problem and as such, separated modular from global thinking, to avoid extrapolation or misinterpretation of the theory. Later, in 2000, countering the overblown commitment to CTM, and this sharp shift from global to modular brain processing study across the sciences and beyond, Turing himself worried about the reductionist trend in thinking about cognitive process. Turing stated it “hadn’t occurred to [him] that anyone could think that is a very large part of the truth; still less that it’s within miles of being the whole story of how the mind works.” (in Fodor 2000, p1)

47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 This now common bastardization of CMT and framing of cognition in modular segments grounds our popular understandings, our infatuation with data, and our assumption that data retrieved from modular systems, can create reasonable, even predictive, information. Transhumanist discourses exploit this computational reduction of brain process, making it a new reasonable imaginary for those of us seeking to improve health, cognition, mood, and other practices related to brain/mind process. Tara McPherson (2011) recognizes modular thought as a kind of ‘lenticular common sense’–a practice bridging cultural thinking from the UNIX system, to racist thought.  She contrasts modular thinking to stereoscopic melding of two disparate images to create 3d perspective; the former (lenticular) image “partitions and divides, privileging fragmentation. A lenticular logic is a logic of the fragment or the chunk, a way of seeing the world as discrete modules or nodes, a mode that suppresses relation and context. As such, the lenticular also manages and controls complexity.” (25)

48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0  

49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 Computational Science Fiction Media

50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 1 Modular logics make sense within transhumanist imaginaries that seek to improve upon human design. Advanced technologies from nanotechnology to neural computing claim to enhance, augment, and advance the human into a posthuman future.[4]  A cogent metaphor from these intersecting disciplines is “uploading” –a practice likening neural pattern brain activity with advanced neural network computing, suggesting that the humans mind can be upgraded, in time, to more durable hardware systems (Moravec 1988, 109-10); here the mind is component. Potent science fiction films have duplicated the idea that the brain is essentially data, including 2001 Space Odyssey, Johnny Mnemonic and Lawnmower Man (1992), among others, that extrapolate on current abilities of technology to enhance or manipulate cognition, where brain is essentially data. [5] TV documentaries such as PBS’s The Secret Life of the Brain, represent cognition and perception as biological, and universal, and in essence, data-driven. The series also examines visualization technologies, such as PET and Catscan machines, in technical terms, failing to interrogating fundamental misperceptions (e.g. that these visualization can show cause of cognitive impairment or actions of cognition), when they instead visualize small actions in modular systems. A still image available to viewers as screensaver (see image below), illustrates our cultural fascination with the synapse–as the formidable moment where data moves across the brain to (factually) create thought. In the series, brain data obtained by new technologies is glorified as always desirable output, allegedly deep data holding mysteries of cognition, best left to experts to understand.

51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 gardner image 6

52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 Screensaver offered to viewers, from PBS series The Secret Life of the Brain (2002)

53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 This is the story that Hans Moravec pegs as hope for our transhumanist future where “we will soon be able to upload our consciousness into computers and leave our bodies behind” (in Hayles 2011, p 1)  Code, or data, of course, is the ubiquitous output of the upload metaphor. Katherine Hayles deems Moravec’s improbable scenario as “dependent on a decontextualized and disembodied construction of information.” (2011,  p 1)   This imaginary, granting excessive power to captured (or imagined) brain data, is referenced in consumer EEG marketing that suggests tracking modular brain waves data (as patterns), and visualizing it, holds unforetold future applications for enhanced cognition. Our brain data is “alterable” and in turn we can alter our brains; this “alterable” framework is required to envision our bodies and minds in technologically mediated, positivist, transhumanist human evolution.

54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 Transhumanism decontextualizes the human and oversimplifies our relationship with technology, mitigating against cyborgian critiques of the biotechnical subject as framed by normative science practice.  Where Hayles worries that transhumanism suggests that corporeal limitations are transcended by technological augmentation, Thacker claims that technology positions itself to move us into the transhuman future. For Hayles, this dangerous claim also offers the possibility for critical questioning of the relations between matter, machine, and manipulation.  Brain wave sensors, then, reside in a critical terrain, where we can either reify or perhaps push back against modular, computational theories of the mind–that potentially reduce human reasoning, mood, personality and subjectivity to data without context and in turn represent that data as the right stuff for remaking humans.

55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0  

56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 Lab to elsewhere: from perception and synthesis to reduction and hacking

57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0 Historically, the development of consumer grade EEG monitors sits in an ancillary position to technologies that have moved from lab to the home, and to spaces elsewhere. Photographic technology, for example, moved from lab to home use; the impact of adapting this scientific documentation practice to everyday self-documentation is addressed by many including Roland Barthes, Susan Sontag and others.  Scientific devices developed for consumer researchers, however, have distinctively different epistemological and use value assumptions, and differently impact how consumers learn, and expect to learn, about science.

58 Leave a comment on paragraph 58 0 19th century photography was widely used as a science tool to document medical “deviants”; but the camera lost some of its science documentation import in becoming a casual tool for “kodaking” one’s family to archive a family history.  Different are tools of science that move from lab to institutional and home spaces, for the purpose of conducting or learning science.  Jonathan Crary (1992) argues the importance of 19th century optical research devices such as the oscilloscope and stereoscope that moved from labs to public events, positioned the subject, all at once, as spectator/subject/and element in the machine.   Play with devices, in public forums, ushered in an epistemological shift in our popular understandings of perception–as both something subjective (temporal) and autonomous to the subject, but also largely quantitative–showing a perception as a universal biological process. (Crary 1992)  Empirical experimentation transformed science observers into participants, using the machine to read the (objective) data, and to create truthful interpretations of perception.  This reified an objectivist understanding of cognitive processes where the user weeded out subjective experience from the (objective) data offered by the machine.

59 Leave a comment on paragraph 59 0 Charles Acland (2007) cites a later 20th century trend, from lab to classroom, employing a Psychology testing tool, the Tachistoscope, that measured rapid visual perception, by temporarily projecting text on a screen, and then removing it.  Acland asks of the “cultural logistics” of this transition–the ideas, impulses and metaphors attached to the experience of this device transposed as a tool in the classroom to teach speedy perception to children. (p 363) Where 19th century science devices in public spaces worked to reduce our understanding of perception to an objectivist account, the Tachistoscope created new ways to explore the liminal zones of consciousness, or perception. As such, the brain “may work to coordinate the incoming information into composite portraits, but the point of access, and hence of quantitative measurement, is the pick up device (e.g. the eye, the ear, the skin, the tongue, the nose).” (Auckland, 2007, p 365) The Tachistoscope both fragmented perception data and then synthesized it into broader knowledges of perception, teaching users this as a new, critical way to deal with body data capture and processing.

60 Leave a comment on paragraph 60 0             This public scientific technology trend –which fragmented the body into data modules –is an essential epistemological precursor to this modular logic era. Differently, however, EEG data is not synthesized in a contextual, complex understanding of cognition. The relocation of EEG machines from science labs to living rooms and hack labs entails the capture of data from body sections, to read, present, and interpret it as reputable data of the whole.  As we will show, EEG data is explained as an electromagnetic frequency (EMF) output from the modular brain wave system that is represented as the data of cognition.  The frequency of the brain wave (alpha, beta, gamma, theta, etc.) is correlated to a particular state of cognition –attentiveness, meditation, concentration, etc.  Where the Tachistoscope invited users to do the mental work to link the data to an epistemological outcome, the consumer grade EEG obscures the work of capture, and processing, and prohibits synthesis beyond the narrow brain wave theory of cognition. In addition, packaging literature explaining the EEG devices unproblematically correlates brain waves to cognition, presented simply as the effect of the brain waves.  Any broader understanding of cognition as articulated to a larger system (that might include brain chemicals or hormones or environment) is abstracted from the textual and visuals explanations of the data.  Differently from the Tachistoscope, adopted from science by for pedagogical purposes, consumer grade biometric devices obfuscate the practices by which data is captured, processed and transformed (albeit, not synthesized) into knowledge.  Where the Tachistoscope synthesized data of perception into a theory, the biometric monitors reduce the idea of cognition to one explainable by data drawn from EEG monitors gauging EMG frequency alone.  Where consumer EEG monitors have different levels of ability to extract comprehensive or reliable EMF data, they all present similar epistemological claims that fetishize the practice of capturing from (but not peering too closely into) the brain, overvaluing the data captured, obliquely offering brain wave theory as an uncontentious way to understand cognitive ability and possibility.

61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 0  

62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0 EEGs past to present: Consumer grade bachelor machines

63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 1 Brain wave monitors became available to consumers over ten years ago when consumers were offered the service of “BMM”  (brain-mind interfaces) by novel small industries, as a quick route to understanding one’s behavioral responses (e.g. aggression) or to learn to meditate.  Joe Dumit (2003) found that users tried to achieve Yogic levels of meditation output from the machines as evidence of self-improvement–that their ‘brain machine’ reflected the BMM machine.  The machine output, rather than one’s state of mind, became the goal, reflecting a military goal of automation, as opposed to a Taylorist industrial sentiment of enhanced efficiency.  Consumers, Dumit argues, sought self-improvement via machines, which ‘did it to them’ in an autoerotic, as opposed to interactive, fashion.  Over ten years later, the design of these products for broad expert-consumer use demands we examine how marketing situates machine as interactive or ‘doing it to us’, as theorized through Deleuze and Guattari’s bachelor machine. [6]  In the context of understanding how we view the data coming from EEG monitors, we must ask: do today’s EEG bachelor machine produce subjects as ‘residue’ that, like older BMM machines, reuniting the fragmented body–bonding desire to the ‘body without organs’–via machine?  Is our predominant desire that the machine does it to us, or is there an instructive doing it to ourselves?

64 Leave a comment on paragraph 64 0 It is important, with consumer EEGs, that though they still “do it to us”, we as users are, tasked, albeit minimally, with taking part in the data collection activity–we pull off our brain wave data, read the visualized data (as proof of relaxation, focus, mediation, etc.) and sometimes direct the data to effect–moving an game avatar or turning off the TV set.   This latter activity–the analysis of the data and purposing it to other effect, suggests, we argue, a transhumanist type of participation in improving upon the current use of our brain data, for other functions, however novel or unimpressive.

65 Leave a comment on paragraph 65 0  

66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0 The visual culture of science, computation and everyday life

67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0 A variety of EEG devices are available on the consumer market including the Neurosky Mindwave, EPOC Emotiv, and NIA mobile and wearable brainwave sensors, among others, ranging in price from $150-$400.[7]  EEG marketing visuals, alone and accompanied by textual stories, strongly lead consumers to interpret brain process reductively.

68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0 The textual and visual rhetoric of brain wave sensors relies on but rarely articulates CTM-type reasoning, suggesting that cognitive practices are largely computational. The science on the box simply presents the brain wave system–electromagnetic processes– as able to produce reliable data that can access and visually represent a user’s state of cognition, rest, mediation, and etc.

69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0 As argued, brainwaves are most sensible in a complex system of interconnected neural activity, but EEG monitor descriptions suggest the waves as coherent pieces of singular data.  Much critical thinking regarding the nature of cognition is possible if users were presented with basic brainwave theory. Brainwaves work in the following manner, according to standard neuroscience research, as explained to us by Neuroscientist Dr. Sean Montgomery. (2010) A brain cell (neuron) receives a signal via a neurotransmitter from a neighboring neuron, and responds by releasing ions into the space on the outside of the cellular membrane – as such it moves from being a negatively to positively charged neuron. The change in charge causes an electrical rush in these ions, exciting them. When sufficiently excited, the neuron sends the signal forward, and spits out a neurotransmitter to a post-synaptic neuron. This action potential of the “excitatory” neuron–is demonstrated in its firing. The EEG device, which conducts electric charges, picks up excitatory energy–which is, in effect, the communication impact of complex internal interneural processing. The electron activity is measured by the EEG device, which picks up its electric signal on the outside of the skull. Notably, the processing involves both excited and unexcited neurons, but only the EEG registers only the activity of excited neurons. The playground or context of the unexcited electrons offers, says Montgomery, an interesting unexplored territory that is important to a more complete deeper understanding of cognition.

70 Leave a comment on paragraph 70 0 The EEG device, then, tracks frequency or patterns of (excited) neural activity–average peaks, across time, or the relative amplitude of each wave frequency. Relative amplitude, ironically, is defined in cognitive neuroscience as “convergence” – the exciting of a single sensory neuron by incoming impulses from multiple other neurons.   This modular way of framing frequency is a highly restrained theory of cognition, situated in a paradigm that seeks repetition across only similar space distributions of neurons.  This “convergence” ignores the larger and mysterious pattern of activity across nonexcitatory and excitatory neurons. Because excited neurons are trackable, (that is, computable data), these patterns of computed frequency, amplitude and phase become defined as “normal” patterns of brain waves.  This critical reading of brain wave theory is instructive, because it demonstrates that theoretical factness is often constructed out of data collection situations that make due and that science models and tools (especially those measuring cognition) are optimally read by what they are unable to track.

71 Leave a comment on paragraph 71 0 In short, this framing of brain activity demonstrates a modular and computational way of approaching the complexity of neural processing.  The (collectable) data are deemed meaningful as stand alone data. Crucially, their authenticity is reified by the visualization of the data, transforming it into information (of cognitive state), suggesting it is a “scientific”, validated, illustration of cognitive process. The absent data and that absent story–the activity of (all) neural activity across synapses–is not made visible.   Instead, the visuals on the websites largely demonstrate the design of the EEG, rather than how it functions technically to pick up and translate brain waves (see figure below).

72 Leave a comment on paragraph 72 0 gardner image 7 gardner image 8

73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0 Images from Epoch, to represent how brain waves work (2013. http://www.emotiv.com/)

74 Leave a comment on paragraph 74 0 The marketing text and visuals roundly fail to provide information regarding how the data is transformed into information via brain wave theory. The devices are also problematic technically–they do not equally pick up EMF (“activator data”) at reliable rates, and nonetheless, correlate frequency to cognitive state. Alpha waves, said to reflect states of relaxation, calm and mediation register in at 9-14 Hz; Theta waves, registering 4-8 Hz, are said to reflect states of deep mediation or problem solving; and finally Beta waves, reflecting alertness and consciousness, register at 15-20 Hz. Yogis have been shown to have highly developed Theta; meditation is said to be a mix of Alpha and Theta.  The EEG devices offer applications that demonstrate your mind state, and games and applications that issue effects in response to a particular frequency.

75 Leave a comment on paragraph 75 1 Using the EEG to activate a particular brain states is difficult. Commonly, gamers achieve the desired game effect by hacking the machine–either deep breathing or repeating a mantra to produce an Alpha frequency and counting backwards to alert the Beta frequency. In so doing, users can be seen as hacking their bodies to produce symptoms or feedback (alpha frequency)–they are not generating relaxation by relaxing or thought by thinking–but by engaging in practices that produce that desired effect.  Counting backwards to obtain Theta frequency is like slapping one’s face to obtain a positive galvanic skin response on a lie detector. The point is that one is not learning to manage one’s cognitive process (learning to think hard, to lie or to hide one’s lying), but is effecting the brain to generate the desired EMF frequency.  Hacking one’s brain is a way to hack the device; the point is, in both cases, we are trying to produce the desired data, not understand cognitive with complexity.

76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0 Because we get visualized output and effects from Brain wave monitors, they provide the allure of peering inside the (ever elusive) mind, suggesting, despite our hacking, the possibility to see one’s self controlling one’s mind. Founder of Emotive, maker of the Epoch headset, Tan Lee, whose public talks are widely available on line, sees the EEG device as sharing key Internet ideals of openness, connectivity and democratization, and discusses neural processing in complex ways–consisting of ‘100 billion nerve cells and many more support cells’. (Lee 2013) Nonetheless, Lee routinely references our common cultural fascination with the mysterious brain and the “magic” of peering in with the EEG, participating in our cultural EEG story that dances from extremes of mindless fantasy to mindful complexity.

77 Leave a comment on paragraph 77 0 Entreaties to take part in the magic of (seeming to) peer into our brains, constrained science visualisations, and the fact that EEG data output (cognitive state visuals, playing a simple game, turning off the light) is rarely fantastic, complete EEG marketing campaigns that rely heavily on our cultural collective science fictions. The campaigns lazily use logical glossings to suggest the machines possess novel and extreme abilities to capture and transform potent brain data into powerful results. Marketing pulls on our desires–to believe the science, to peer into and harness our own brains, to engage in expert-like data collection, to submit to the thing doing it to us. Together these enticements pull us into a desire to allow the device to use us.

78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0  

79 Leave a comment on paragraph 79 0 Reifying modular logic, capturing mundane data

80 Leave a comment on paragraph 80 0 Brain wave monitors often collect inexact or faulty data. As argued, the visualisation of brain waves in games and other exercises with the EEG ask users to simply accept the data, rather than address it critically as an element in cognitive process. EEG games and biofeedback exercises (that teach relaxation for health benefits) often ask users to trigger Alpha waves, desirable because they signify calm. Alpha waves, Dr. Sean Montgomery advises, reside more deeply in back bottom of the skull, while many consumer grade monitors use leads that attach to the forehead.  The leads problematically detect brow furrows, sneezes and other activities that record as brain waves, muddying the data.  As such, the data coming from these monitors is often unreliable.  As well, the monitors output the data in standard linear representations of frequency highs and lows, across time, entreating users to understand the data only within the paradigm of the brain wave story of cognition. Altogether, the marketing story for brain wave monitors constrains consumers from “synthesizing” data–as Acland finds possible via the Tachistoscope. Instead, the monitor packing information and advertising presses the reductionist framing of waves as cognition at every stage–graphic and textual explanation, visual description, and even at the level of use, where users have to hack to succeed quickly at the games work.

81 Leave a comment on paragraph 81 0 Beyond the bar graphs that represent the data coming off these devices, the marketing employs textual and visual discourses in the pretense of scientific accuracy– to scientize the brain wave data as useful to consumers.  Where the “NIA” EEG device distinctly presents itself as science tool, the Neurosky and EPOC Emotiv, exploit the authority of scientists using their tools for research, and shroud the tools in CTM theory, to suggest that modular data is sound for predicting cognitive states. These assumptions are found in suggestions that the EEGs are suggested as useful for an astounding range of everyday tasks–cognitive assessment, cognitive play, gaming, hacking, and utilitarian home tasks. The enormous ontological leap from EEG capture for scientific inquiry and to gaming or home entertainment use, relies on collective fictions that this “science” data is useful, reliable, and re-computable. The marketing obscures rather than relays this process, we come to know our cognitive state (attention, meditation), and view our brains, newly, as effects generators, promising greater future results.

82 Leave a comment on paragraph 82 0  

83 Leave a comment on paragraph 83 0 The market of brain wave monitors

84 Leave a comment on paragraph 84 0

85 Leave a comment on paragraph 85 0 The NIA (Neural Impulse Actuator) by OCZ Technology.

86 Leave a comment on paragraph 86 0 The most effective brain wave monitors have more electromagnetic sensors or “leads” that are able to pick up more brain wave signals from diverse areas of the skull. Such devices make better contact with the skull, are user friendly and don’t require gels to be applied to heads to activate sensors. Referred to as “space age technology”, the NIA headband uses carbon nanofibre based sensors that in fact have limited range on the forehead for picking up bioelectrical signals. The NIA marketing literature states that it works by translating facial expressions, eye movements and concentrated brainwave activity into a ‘computer controllable gaming tool. Unique among its competitors, the NIA admits that its data is muddied by forehead response. With its simple on-line marketing strategy, the NIA device presents itself as a simple research tool, presumably banking on creating a community loyal to its tool that merely serves as a cheap gaming input.  This modest approach and rather weak data pick up design strongly contrasts this tool to the Neurosky and EPOC Emotive brainwave monitors, reaching for bigger market segments and thus working on more potent imaginaries.

87 Leave a comment on paragraph 87 0 The Neurosky Mindset and Mindwave have only one single sensor lead, which sits on the front of the head, which is not an ideal site to capture desirable relaxation-signifying Alpha waves.  The marketing consistently references the brainwave’s role in future cognitive enhancement and transhumanist advancement.

88 Leave a comment on paragraph 88 0  

89 Leave a comment on paragraph 89 0 gardner image 1

90 Leave a comment on paragraph 90 0 gardner image 2 

Marketing imagery from the Neurosky website.

92 Leave a comment on paragraph 92 0 The varied visuals reference higher educational research partners, applications in the classroom, and successes in gaming, suggesting this as a credible device for all types of lab to living room research.  Rather than going the gaming community alone, Neurosky seeks a broad market of gamers, parents, early adopters, hackers and any one else intrigued by the potentially impactful power of the brain.

93 Leave a comment on paragraph 93 0 With its single lead, the Neurosky is not the favoured device among research scientists, who tend to use the EPOC Emotiv device, containing 14 sensor leads that more accurately pick up EMF. To compensate for its weak data production, Neurosky’s marketing plan presents the devices as accessible, familiar and friendly to the open source community.  It seeks to naturalise the device with visual references to common cultural activities — kids using the Neurosky to game, and users gazing at screens to operate home entertainment devices.  This marketing strategy references, as explained, a reductionist and under-argued suggestion that potent data in brains can be accessed by these “good enough” devices, to help kids to improve their brains.  (Dumit 2000) The text provides a weak link between monitoring students attention levels (via the devices) and improved thinking and achievement. Instead, these tasks and outcomes are linked by extra-discursive discourses–vague transhumanist discourses (from industry, science, and media) and potent North American educational policy directives linking assessment to improvement, and labeling inattention as a mental disorder (ADHD) in need of technological medication.

94 Leave a comment on paragraph 94 0 Deeply resonant in many EEG marketing images are mainstream science fiction media (film and TV particularly) that inform our popular imagination, creating formative cultural myths regarding the crucial role of technology in human progress.  While space prohibits a full analysis of science fiction narratives resonant in EEG marketing, the strongly stereotypically feminized images employed in ads are key to understanding the monitors as representations of techno-power–a dual sexualized fantasy of sublimating self to both technophilic desire and to technology itself, as has been explained by a range of feminist scholars (Balsamo, 1996; Kember 2003)  Femininity in these ads is not offered, exactly, as a thing controllable by technology, but instead, as fetishized exchanges of power-data referencing femininity as potent, desirable, and available–a willing and interested site.  Biotechnical marketing works successfully when it glosses illogical suggestions, and makes invisible the complex context of a problem, replacing it with potent, culturally resonant visuals. (Gardner 2006)  In Foucaultian terms, this is a discursive rupture–the subtle insertion of a new logic into an old, accepted logic; it works to successfully withhold “the rich uncertainty of disorder” that lies behind the “visible facade of the system” (Foucault, 1969, p. 76).

95 Leave a comment on paragraph 95 0 Like the history of marketing pharmaceutical drugs to consumers, attractive female subjects are deployed as the “first line” of entry, offered up as a welcoming entry to the curious device.  Below, a beautiful woman conjures a holographic image, beholding it with serene composure, linking this as yet unachievable dream –future progress –with technology, via sexual allure.  Reflecting a new kind of binding of the gendered body to social body imaginaries (Balsamo, 1996), this body (or face) is represented as subject (as opposed to the more traditional female silhouette or body fragment), transgressing the habits of marketing via female bodies. She is subject whose mind conjures magic in and through the brain wave monitor; she is not, exactly, constrained but rather enjoined in the rapture of technopromise. And yet, this is not a subject in a comprehensible story–she is subject as interface with the EEG device; her mind alone is the thing mediating the viewers’ relationship to the odd device. In this loose story of technofascination the mind/female might enable (but not exactly create) magical output via the brain machine and EEG machine in the future, suggesting transhumanist potential.

96 Leave a comment on paragraph 96 0 The female is not mere body, but mere brain; in that sense, she still serves the social body–as medium for transhumanist fantasies.  The image can be seen as harkening up dominant images of femininity we have learned collectively from the long running TV and film narratives of Star Trek, often (though not always) representing the female via essentialist characteristics, and alien female leaders as failed versions of the feminine.[8] (Roberts 1999)  This marketing reflects cultural expectations cultivated by these common representational practices that bind technology with femininity ” played out through cooperation and an undifferentiated self.” (Roberts 1999, p65). In other TV dramas, such as CSI and spin off crime dramas, popular across youth and adult age groups, femininity is linked to science work (albeit crime scene investigation), via tropes of beauty, geeky music scores and elicit heterosexual content, that fall well within normative framings of femininity. [9]  Normative femininity is a knee jerk semiotic device here, suggesting this strange new EEG machine as potent, desirable, accessible, alluring–an inviting technological innovation that keeps in tact other knowledges (e.g. gender, science fictions) that we can rely on in uncertain times and with uncertain devices.

97 Leave a comment on paragraph 97 0 The device does not promise to open up new opportunities for knowing, but rather for obtaining brain data, with perhaps little understanding. It does not in that sense challenge reductive science narratives, gendered technology paradigms, or gender’s place in normative social structures.  This female subject obtains no new power, but rather harkens the power of femininity as conduit–seducing us to desire this new technology, while embracing paradigmatic sameness–the socially attributed power of science to progress, asking us to follow this obfuscated technology to its (seemingly preordained) logical conclusions.

98 Leave a comment on paragraph 98 0 gardner image 3

An attractive woman harnesses her mind in Neurosky marketing.

100 Leave a comment on paragraph 100 0 Brain Wave Sensors for Every Body

101 Leave a comment on paragraph 101 0 Neurosky advertising suggests that the device can accurately measure mental states (such as meditation and attention), which it concedes are different than actual thoughts, but can be framed as conscious and unconscious states. It suggests that users can pull off data to demonstrate thinking or feeling, overdetermining its ability to detect cognition. The Neurosky capitulates: “Seeing that a user is in a state of calm is different from sensing that the user likes the color blue,” but nevertheless, blurs the ability of the device to “detect” either state, focusing instead on output: “these mental states have powerful capabilities when integrated into video games, education, sports coaching, meditation, etc.” (Neurosky 2013) After all, its marketing slogan is “Brain Wave Sensors for Every Body.” This discursive framing asks consumers to accept that the machine can detect EMF data to interpret conscious and/or unconscious state, in order to engage in this fantasy–the transformation of brain signals to new information, and the promise of expanded consciousness or cognitive abilities. Users are asked to ignore the process of data collection and to be impressed by the graphic output from the monitors. In fact, subjective experience can equally work to interpret this brain activity (thinking hard, meditating); interestingly, the monitors’ output tells us little more than our experience already tells us.  The visuals, and the cultural contexts referenced, seek to supplement our mere subjective knowledge with the knowledge provided by machine produced “data.” EEG monitors dress brainwave data as science in action, valorizing the factness of data, reducing our mind practices to data, and focusing us on other, more interesting stories, and hopes–repurposing our personal data in novel ways.

102 Leave a comment on paragraph 102 0 The enormous glossing made here, regarding how measured levels of mental states, like meditation or attention, prove instrumental in discourses of use–how to become a better gamer, learner, teacher, or athlete. In this case, the device safely assumes that cultural training around quick fixes, easy hacks, and the ultimate power of any data will create a market of complacent consumers who care not for further information about how the devices capture, process or output brain waves.  The presentation of the Neurosky as a “mind reading” device takes a giant step toward locating us as computationally and data-duped consumers, who have consumed, in its entirety the output of “the Brain” and “the Mind” celebrated in North American over the past two decades. The Neurosky is smugly certain we will buy its story– that any data, particularly brain data, is good and useful, and can be employed to manipulate consumers via highly overdetermined neoliberal, transhumanist discourses.

103 Leave a comment on paragraph 103 0 In this marketing discourse, the realm of neuroscience is both mystified and presented as a coherent field of inquiry producing incontrovertible views of conscious and unconscious processing.  By referencing research affiliations with major institutions like Stanford, MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, and Trinity College, readers are asked to trust that the brain wave science is advanced, that the brain’s modules (e.g. electromagnetic frequency emanating from brain wave activity) can be reasonably studied in isolation, that the effect –small or enormous– moving gaming avatars, turning on the TV, moving cars, biofeedback, reflects the integrity and power of the data.

104 Leave a comment on paragraph 104 0 gardner image 4

105 Leave a comment on paragraph 105 0 Health professionals are told they will have vested interest in a unimodal brainwave sensor like the Neurosky.

106 Leave a comment on paragraph 106 0 The Neurosky marketing pulls directly on transhumanist claims to justify it as a healthcare device. Starting from a rhetoric of responsibility, its website claims “It is our duty to preserve brainwaves so that we may continue to thrive as humans.” With the positivist linkage of human evolution to technology, the Neurosky frames itself as a home tool for self-improvement. In line with neoliberal, transhumanist discourses binding individual responsibility for self-improvement, consumers are encouraged to dutifully step up to the plate, taking on strange new data capture technologies to supplement docile brains–that, as Foucault has shown, are by definition imperfect and in need of improvement.  The EEG offers us an individualistic technology for powerful self-enhancement,  to administer upon our imperfect brains.

107 Leave a comment on paragraph 107 0 The online consumer audience is told:

108 Leave a comment on paragraph 108 0 “Technologies from Neurosky will be instrumental in the effort to harness, maintain and heal this most vital of human organs…healthy brains are vital to our family, our patients, our students, our planet and ourselves. Early detection. Frequent exercise. Periodic relaxation. Indulgent entertainment. Swift healing…That’s why at Neurosky, we make Brainwave Sensors for Every Body.”

109 Leave a comment on paragraph 109 0 This inclusive marketing approach threaded with the promise of health care, impossibly, presents this awkward brain wave capture device as a tool for every body, via a familiar health discourse of “responsibilisation” (Rose 2006) –that consumers should pre-detect risk, find early solutions, to enhance their productivity.  With this chameleonesque tool, Neurosky taps into markets ranging from gamers to yogis to hypochondriacs, gliding over the glossed rationales of its messy data, suggesting overdetermined data impact, with the overarching clause that brains matter and should be technologically embraced and modified, if not precisely understood.

110 Leave a comment on paragraph 110 0 gardner image 5

111 Leave a comment on paragraph 111 0 The human brain and machine fit together like a hand in a glove.

112 Leave a comment on paragraph 112 0 The relationship between the brain and technology as belonging to one another gets further reified in how the Neurosky sells itself as a television controller. In the image above we see that the brain inside the human head is dualistically separated from the technology intended to hold it. Their enframing within the television set, side by side signify that they belong together, fitting neatly like pieces of virtual life puzzle. Playing on the idea that technological augmentation generates human evolution, the image suggest that something is lacking when pieces don’t fit together– something is lost if the dialogic opposite is not present; the brain needs a tool.

113 Leave a comment on paragraph 113 0 In Foucaultian terms, these visual references allow this new, radical suggestion–that brain waves themselves can be effective domestic devices–to become a new discursive truth. As a rupture of discourse, seeming to fit the usual logic of personal data capture, the brainwave effect story slips into our ways of framing everyday behaviors (like watching television or monitoring our daily run), inserting playful, fictionally familiar tools; brainwave monitors thus enter our imaginaries and our living rooms, as new gaming devices, fitting neatly alongside the Wii wand, Kinect sensor, and Nike sensor. In this quiet discursive slip, that looks merely like an innocent addition to our data collection tools, the EEG uses mythologies to load consumers with stories that gloss its weak data collection, overestimate its ability to know cognition, successfully transforming it for purposes of play, home use, and research as an mind improvement and even “preservation” tool. EEG monitors, like other biotechnical tools, reinforce the peculiar character of advanced liberal democracies: “a complex of marketization, autonomization and responsibilization” (2006, p. 4).  We are hailed by extracultural discourses to purchase this commodity in order to manage uncertainty, by laboring to improve our futures at the site of the brain.

114 Leave a comment on paragraph 114 0  

115 Leave a comment on paragraph 115 0 New geek markets, new applications

116 Leave a comment on paragraph 116 0 Recently, new Neurosky applications such as the Visualizer allow users to listen to music through their device and watch on screen melodies apparently affecting one’s mood and thoughts. The NeuroBoy application, tells young gamers it will grant them the feeling of having super-powers as it allows them to “push” and “burn” virtual objects with their interpreted mental states. The Neocomimi is the Neurosky’s new aesthetic accompaniment that interprets sensed brain waves as moods, and expresses them using cat ears for a public display of what’s on your mind. The ears relax when highly relaxed, move vertical when focused, extend extremely vertical and close together in quick succession when intensely focusing on something, and wiggle back and forth when the wearer finds something interesting.

117 Leave a comment on paragraph 117 0 gardner image 6

118 Leave a comment on paragraph 118 0 gardner image 7

119 Leave a comment on paragraph 119 0 gardner image 8

120 Leave a comment on paragraph 120 0 gardner image 9

121 Leave a comment on paragraph 121 0   gardner image 10

122 Leave a comment on paragraph 122 0 Sold applications range from mobile phone-integrated headsetsto frivolous tech for public display of one’s formerly private emotional states.

123 Leave a comment on paragraph 123 0 The marketing video for the Neocomimi features a woman wearing the ears who gets intrigued by a male passerby. We watch her ears go from relaxed, to focused, highly focused, and highly interested as the man strolls past; flirting is no longer a subtle affair.  Clearly seeking to appeal to youth gamers, kids and comic and subcultures such as Cosplay (Costume Play),  the transhumanist marketing strategies are transposed onto these dress up monitors, in playful, recognizable, and thus non-transgressive gender play scenarios presented by the visuals. Neurosky articulates a familiar gender-technology nexus, promising to constrain technology to the desires of the social body. The bunny ear figure maintains this reductionist role of the body, infusing it with childish (culturally recognizable) play where technology is used in non-productive play for certain subjects–namely the girls wearing the bunny ears.

124 Leave a comment on paragraph 124 0 gardner image 11

125 Leave a comment on paragraph 125 0 A hacked Neurosky turned into an electric shocker (featured on Neurosky website).

126 Leave a comment on paragraph 126 1 Finally, the Neurosky embraces an open-source ethos of sharing whereby they give away developer tools free of charge and sell chipsets in volumes as low as ten. Their website states “Though EEG has been around for over 100 years, we are still in the nascent phase of the movement. Do-it-yourselfers have shown tremendous creativity with NeuroSky technology. Our open philosophy embraces community, hacking, and sharing.” Not only is the device marketed to every body across a variety of different social categories and professional pursuits, it is marketed specifically to a burgeoning community of DIY creatives who provide free marketing and new applications that can in turn be sold by Neurosky. By encouraging the DIY movement to use and extend the applications offered by its technology, the developers benefit from the creative projects of outsiders that add value to their technology, for the low price of access. As Terranova (2003) tells us, this decentralization discourse on the part of these EEG producers disingenuously heralds information sharing, while taking full advantage of the generosity (and neoliberalist) inclinations of DYI workers. As critical scholars, however, we are aware that while one cultural product from this flow is the theft of free labour, other critical production is possible here; research creation in our lab, for example, his spirited this critique of EEG monitors,  and much productive work is possible in DYI communities, employing the devices as critical art projects reflecting on reductive science an data valorization, and productively employing the devices as biofeedback tools for example, to teach mindfulness practice.[10]

127 Leave a comment on paragraph 127 0  

128 Leave a comment on paragraph 128 0 The EPOC Emotive

129 Leave a comment on paragraph 129 0 gardner image 12

You think, therefore you can, with the EPOC Emotiv.

131 Leave a comment on paragraph 131 0             The EPOC device is used routinely by universities and research centres and its data withstands the peer-review process of science journals.  Yet, the device uses discourse purporting that it is a revolutionary, personal Human Computer Interaction device that one in fact needs.  The website poorly links brain wave science, largely unexplained, with this still consumer grade HCI technology. As such, it provides a sell different from the Neurosky–suggesting that cutting edge and diverse individuals on the forefront of knowledge, who recognize the words of Rene Descartes when they see them, can use, and may need, a personal interface with their brain.

132 Leave a comment on paragraph 132 0 While the Neurosky’s marketing literature explains it can read mental states, such as relaxation and meditation, but not thoughts, the EPOC Emotiv website claims it “uses a set of sensors to tune into electric signals produced by the brain to detect player thoughts, feelings and expressions”. (EPOC 2013) Using technology quite similar to the Neurosky, which reads the faint electrical potentials generated by neurons placed near the device nodes on the scalp’s surface, the Epoch also suggests it is able to achieve extreme information (even feelings) from our brain data.  The sexually provocative photographs of Epoch models matched with its romantic claims, presumably constitute a marketing gamble: that consumer’s desire for this gendered, technological imaginary will overshadow the slippery logic suggesting the device can read feelings. Like the Neurosky, the gendered, in this case, half-naked body (in this case, a black man) is articulated to a familiar western of science intrigue where certain subjects are first to submit, willingly–promising more of the same science fictions, and perhaps, titilatingly, greater revealing of the (desired) subject’s desires.

133 Leave a comment on paragraph 133 0 Similar to the Neurosky, the Emotiv EPOC also draws upon recognizable technology like apps to demonstrate its role as a tool for everyday use. Promising early users exclusive access to the Emotiv App Store and its “one-of-a-kind neurotechnology platform”, customers are invited to use their apps for artistic and creative expression where they can use their “thoughts, feeling, and emotion to dynamically create color, music, and art.” (Epoch, 2013) Their marketing literature promises life-changing applications for disabled patients, such as controlling an electric wheelchair with one’s thoughts. It suggests the device can link to PC games, enabling the fantasy of controlling one’s favourite game with the mind. Lastly, it capitalizes on applications for market research and advertising, suggesting the Emotiv will deliver true insight about how people respond to and feel about products presented to them. The gaps between the needs of disabled populations, innovative gaming culture and market foresighting are vast, while scientific explanations of the Emotiv’s functioning are completely absent. Again, this marketing delivers transhumanist discourse that lauds technogenesis and brings the subject ever closer to technological emancipation from human limitations. This closeness closes in on the home, indeed, the living room–suggesting the brain monitor as intervening tool for daily use, in the casual self-monitoring and self-surveilling of discrete biometric data. The device implies we are less evolved without the knowledge and freedom gained through such devices, and that casual living room surveillance of brain data is both everyday and has enormous effects and potentials.

134 Leave a comment on paragraph 134 0 gardner image 13

135 Leave a comment on paragraph 135 0 Tan Lee, co-founder of EPOC, offers the Emotive, as an image of the future, at the TED conference.

136 Leave a comment on paragraph 136 0 This paper makes the case that consumer discourse associated with brain wave monitors glosses brain wave science in a manner not entirely different from the ways in which CTM makes glossed assumptions about how we can know the brain.  The marketing raises important questions, but provides consumers no information by which they can answer: Is cognitive process or perhaps reason something we can know from computing brain data such as waves and electromagnetic frequency or energy? Can one demonstrate intention by cognitively “pushing” or “relaxing” their “mind”? If one can push or hack the device, does this show a decision making ability reducible to synaptic electric activity–is the subject the sum total of modular, collected, computed, and mapped data? In the science fiction of brain wave monitors, is “intentional” pushing or relaxing sufficient to suggest we are controlling our “brain” activity?

137 Leave a comment on paragraph 137 0 The poor data collected and transformed into overdetermined effect, suggests that cheap devices, reductionist science, and minimal effort can have enormous, transformative, even transhumanist results for everyday consumers and expert researchers alike. Across the marketing discourses, the social body politic is mapped to the gendered body, linking sexual power dynamics to the promised power housed in our ever mysterious and seductive brain.  The marketing logic captures the neoliberalist ease of computational theories that bind simple reductionist theories of bodies or minds to work–notably, working in neoliberalist manners seeking simple solutions for brain data capture, for repair or improvement. As such, the consumer subject needs only buy the device and accept some apps, to acquire the quick and easy result. Happily and magically, the science brain wave fiction is easily realized–hacking the device to get effect is fair play, and the results that seem science fictionally enticing are also familiar, constrained–flashy but nontransgressive by gender, social and consumer science norms. The absence of complex scientific discourse or reasoning, replaced by familiar gendered technoscience narratives and data infatuation, makes the entire consumption process user friendly.

138 Leave a comment on paragraph 138 0 This fiction, or rather sales scenario, is an apt metaphor, we’d suggest, for the consumerisation of neuroscience information, and of CTM theories.  They gloss over contentions among cognition philosophers and brain researchers in a similar manner.  In the absence of a coherent narrative about how the mind creates thoughts, each of us–scientists, science reporters, media makers and product advertisers, and consumers–is forced to embrace some other kind of logic to promote or embrace the brain wave monitor. This normally means linking the device to some other kind of authority or some level of cultural practice that seems recognizable, fits a recognizable flow–like gaming, or narrativized science research, or Cosplay, or monitoring your kids- while creating new highly productive and diverse flows or outputs.

139 Leave a comment on paragraph 139 0 We’ve begun to outline a method here linking critical approaches to technoscience and human computer interaction, with an analysis of the epistemological and cultural practice trajectories that bind biotechnical and neuroscience studies with biotechnical device (specifically EEG) marketing and consumption. In this paper, we have applied our critical biotechnical computational lens to the work of marketing EEG devices. From this work, we begin to respond to Hayles plea, that we track how transhumanism embeds its ideas in “deep, rich, and challenging contextualizations that re-introduce the complexities it strips away…in these encounters, transhumanism serves as the catalyst–or better, the irritant–that stimulates a more considered and responsible view of the future than it itself can generate.” (2011, 217).   In future work, we will explicate more fully this methodological approach and its value toward manifesting the broader new media studies desired by Kember and Zylinska, that target technologies and cultural practices to understand, more deeply, how we mediate and how consumers use these devices.

140 Leave a comment on paragraph 140 0 Optimistically, we find a rich terrain of controversial and contradictory claims that gloss the value of modular brain wave, and make it tenable to launch our critique of EEG devices, and in time, a range of other reductionist technologies–both discourses and devices.  We take seriously Thacker’s concerns (2003) that the reduction of humans to data is made possible by “the equivalency, the back-and-forth mobility, the accountability, and the generativity of code in relation to the body” thereby regulating bio-logic of the biomolecular body.  (p13)   Ongoing cultural and media analysis, bounded to STS approaches, are crucial to exposing this ongoing lauding and normativisation of the biologic.  With Terranova (2003), we find that the stakes are high; she sees, new cultural flows, articulated in such products as consumer biotechnologies, as “flattening out of social, cultural, and political connections” resulting in “the loss of transcendence, of external principles which organize the social world from the outside…a loss of strategies for dealing with power.”  (p. x)  Terranova insists it doesn’t necessarily have to end in nihilism, but rather, we must engage in “mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities.” (p x)

141 Leave a comment on paragraph 141 0 As practicing artists ourselves, we are currently exploiting these glossed, reduced, overdetermined and contradictory claims through our own practices. One author is currently conducting participatory research whereby participants, asked to collect and process their own data, are then faced with actually constructing visuals that produce wither information or critique of the modular biodata. The second author is re-imagining tactical practices of crafting biotechnical stories of genomes, through material participatory practices and through audio critique.[11]  Much resistive brain monitor art practice is afoot internationally, challenging reductionist and transhumanist imaginaries attached to the devices[12]. Beyond art practice, however, we echo the cries of Kember and Zylinska, for media studies and communication theory scholars to engage critiques of media/technology cultures, as linked practices, that can be critiqued via a range of venues, including media and cultural practices analyses, especially where art practices intersect with everyday life practices, suggesting potent, and potentially transformative, cultural interstices.

142 Leave a comment on paragraph 142 0  

143 Leave a comment on paragraph 143 0

144 Leave a comment on paragraph 144 0 Works Cited

145 Leave a comment on paragraph 145 0 Ackoff, R. L., “From Data to Wisdom”, Journal of Applies Systems Analysis, Volume 16, 1989 p 3-9.

146 Leave a comment on paragraph 146 0 Agamben, Giorgio. No to Bio-Political Tattooing, Le Monde 10 January 2004

147 Leave a comment on paragraph 147 0 Balsamo, Anne.  1996. “ªTechnologies of the gendered body: “ªreading cyborg women. Duke University Press.

148 Leave a comment on paragraph 148 0 Barthes, Roland 1969. Elements of Semiology. New York: Hill & Wang.

149 Leave a comment on paragraph 149 0 Benjamin, Walter.  1937/1969.  “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Harry Zohn, trans. ed. Hannah Arendt, Illuminations.  New York: Schocken Books.

150 Leave a comment on paragraph 150 0 Bauman, Zygmut. 2007.  Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. UK:Polity. N n

151 Leave a comment on paragraph 151 0 Bergson, Henri. (1946). The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics. New York: Kensington Publishing Corp.

152 Leave a comment on paragraph 152 0 –.  (1990) Matter and Memory. (Matière et Mémoire 1896) translators N.M. Paul and W.S. Palmer. Zone Books

153 Leave a comment on paragraph 153 0 Braun, Brian and Sarah Whitmore, Eds.  2010. Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy and Public Life.  Minneapolis, University of Minneapolis Press.

154 Leave a comment on paragraph 154 0 Brouse, Andrew. “A Young Person’s Guide to Brainwave Music”. HorizonZero. 15. May/June 2004.

155 Leave a comment on paragraph 155 0 Buck-Morss. Susan. “Aesthetics and Anaesthetics: Walter Benjamin’s Artwork Essay Reconsidered”. October, Vol. 62. (Autumn, 1992), p 3-41.

156 Leave a comment on paragraph 156 0 Crary, Jonathan. 1992. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the 19th Century. Boston: MIT Press.

157 Leave a comment on paragraph 157 0 Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus; capitalism and schizophrenia; translated by Brian Massumi.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

158 Leave a comment on paragraph 158 0 –1984.  Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. USA: Viking Press.

159 Leave a comment on paragraph 159 0 Deutsche, Rosalyn. 1996. Evictions. Art and Spatial Politics. Cambridge, Mass-London: MIT Press.

160 Leave a comment on paragraph 160 0 Dumit, Joe. 2004.  Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

161 Leave a comment on paragraph 161 0 — 2000.  “When explanations rest: “good-enough” brain science and the new socio-medical  disorders, in Eds  Margaret Lock, Alan Young, and Alberto Cambrosio, Living and Working with the New Medical Technologies’; Intersections of Inquiry.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

162 Leave a comment on paragraph 162 0 EPOC. 2013.  Emotiv Website. URL: http://www.emotiv.com.

163 Leave a comment on paragraph 163 0 Fleck, Ludwig.  1979.  Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Ed. Thaddeus Trenn and Robert K. Merton. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)

164 Leave a comment on paragraph 164 0 Fodor, Jerry. 2000. The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way. MIT Press.

165 Leave a comment on paragraph 165 0 Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge; Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. USA: Vintage

166 Leave a comment on paragraph 166 0 Fox Keller, Evelyn. 1995. Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology. New York: Columbia University Press.

167 Leave a comment on paragraph 167 0 Friendly, Michael. 2008.  Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization. Self-published.  URL: www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/milestone/milestone.pdf

168 Leave a comment on paragraph 168 0 –2007. “A brief history of data visualization”. In: C. Chen, Wolfgang Härdle and Antony Unwin, eds., Handbook of Computational Statistics: Data Visualization, vol. III, chap. 1, pp. 1–34. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

169 Leave a comment on paragraph 169 0 –.  1998.  “The Question of Public Space” [lecture], American Photography Institute National Graduate Seminar “Public Strategies: Public Art and Public Space.” New York: Tisch School of the Arts. URL: http://www.thephotographyinstitute.org/journals/1998/rosalyn_deutsche.html

170 Leave a comment on paragraph 170 0 Galloway, Alex. Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2004.

171 Leave a comment on paragraph 171 0 Gardner, Paula. 2010. “Politicizing Mobile Art; Space, Becoming, and Dislocation” in Poissant, Louise and Pierre Tremblay, ed. Ensemble ailleurs, Presses de l’Université du Québec, Montreal, Que.

172 Leave a comment on paragraph 172 0 –2007. “Re-gendering Depression: Risk, web health campaigns and the feminized pharmaco-subject.” Canadian Journal of Communication, 32: 3/4 (October).

173 Leave a comment on paragraph 173 0 Grubin, David, Producer. 2002.  The Secret Life of the Brain.  USA: PBS. (URL: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/history/index.html)

174 Leave a comment on paragraph 174 0 Guattari, Felix and Paul Bains. 1995. Chaosmosis: An Ethico Aesthetic Paradigm. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

175 Leave a comment on paragraph 175 0 Haraway, Donna.  1990. Simians Cyborgs, and Women.  NY: Routledge.

176 Leave a comment on paragraph 176 0 Hayles, Katherine.  2011. “Wrestling with Transhumanism,” In Eds, Hansell, Gregory R; Grassie, William, Transhumanism and Its Critics, p 215-226.

177 Leave a comment on paragraph 177 0 –2003. Afterword: The Human In the Posthuman.  Cultural Critique 53, Posthumanism. 134-137.

178 Leave a comment on paragraph 178 0 –1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

179 Leave a comment on paragraph 179 0 Hartley, John.” Digital Scholarship and Pedagogy, the Next Step: Cultural Science” Cinema Journal 48, No. 2, Winter 2009

180 Leave a comment on paragraph 180 0 Horst, Steven, “The Computational Theory of Mind”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/computational-mind

181 Leave a comment on paragraph 181 0 Howarth, David. “Space, Subjectivity and Politics”. Alternatives 31 (2006): 105-134.

182 Leave a comment on paragraph 182 0 Johnson, Mark. 2007. The Meaning of the Body; Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

183 Leave a comment on paragraph 183 0 Lee, Tan. 2011.  “A headset that reads your brainwaves,” Ci (Creative Innovation). URL: http://www.ted.com/talk/tan_le_a_headset_that_reads_your_brainwaves.html.

184 Leave a comment on paragraph 184 0 Marchart, Oliver. “Art, Space and the Public Sphere(s): Some basic observations on the difficult relation of public art, urbanism and political theory,” “Pre_public Issue, Transversa, No. 01 (2002).  [On-line Journal of the European Institute for Progressive Cultural Politics] URL: http://www.eipcp.net/transversal/0102/marchart/en

185 Leave a comment on paragraph 185 0 McCulloch, WS and WH Pitts. 1943.  “A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity”, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5: 115-133.

186 Leave a comment on paragraph 186 0 McPherson, Tara. 2011 “U.S. Operating Systems at Mid-Century: The Intertwining of Race and UNIX”  in, Eds Nakamura, Lisa and Peter Chow-White, Race After the Internet. NY: Routledge.

187 Leave a comment on paragraph 187 0 Metzl, Jonathan. 2003. Prozac on the Couch: Prescribing Gender in the Era of Wonder Drugs. Duke University Press.

188 Leave a comment on paragraph 188 0 Montgomery, Sean. 2010. Neuroaesthetics Workshop, OCAD University. Spring 2010.

189 Leave a comment on paragraph 189 0 Muellner, Nicholas. “The New Interval” in the. Afterimage, May/Jun2011, Vol. 38, Issue 6.

190 Leave a comment on paragraph 190 0 Neurosky. 2013. Mindset Website. URL: http://www.neurosky.com.

191 Leave a comment on paragraph 191 0 Rabinow, Paul and Talia Dan-Cohen. 2006.  A Machine to Make a Future: Biotech Chronicles. Princeton; Princeton University Press.

192 Leave a comment on paragraph 192 0 Robert, Robin.1999. Sexual Generations: Star Trek, the Next Generation, and Gender. University of Illinois Press.

193 Leave a comment on paragraph 193 0 Rose, Nikolas. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

194 Leave a comment on paragraph 194 0 –. “Neurochemical Selves”. Society Nov/Dec (2003): 46-49.

195 Leave a comment on paragraph 195 0 Stengers, Isabelle. 2000. The Invention of Modern Science. Trans. Daniel W Smith.Minneapolis, University of Minneapolis Press.

196 Leave a comment on paragraph 196 0 Terranova, Tiziana.  2003.   Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy.  URL: http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/technocapitalism/voluntary

197 Leave a comment on paragraph 197 0 Thacker, Eugene.  2004. Biomedia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

198 Leave a comment on paragraph 198 0 –2003.  Bioinformatics and Bio-logics.  Postmodern Culture 13.2. URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/postmodern_culture/v013/13.2thacker.html

199 Leave a comment on paragraph 199 0 Turing, Alan. 1936. “On Computable Numbers” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 24: 230-265.

200 Leave a comment on paragraph 200 0 Sherry Turkle. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit  (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1984)

201 Leave a comment on paragraph 201 0 Van Lier, Henri (1983) .Philosophy of Photography (1983)  GET REST OF REF

202 Leave a comment on paragraph 202 0  

203 Leave a comment on paragraph 203 0  

204 Leave a comment on paragraph 204 0 [1] Bauman explains that in ‘liquid times,’ local politics are positioned but unable to tackle problems caused at global levels, forms have no time to solidify, and individuals have no social insurance against loss.  These grand problems reduce individuals to individualist practices pitting us against each other, and giving rise to deep fear and insecurity.

205 Leave a comment on paragraph 205 0 [2] North American consumer literature tends to reduce complex scientific ideas and theories, and overdetermine the meaningfulness of data, instructively, to predict a subject’s health, illness, mood, and personality.  This is especially the case with consumer literature addressing brain and mind, produced by public and private sources–public health agencies, consumer advocacy groups and health industry organizations. The literature generally avoids framing data in complex body systems and instead narrativizes data in discrete systems (e.g. hormonal, neurotransmitter, brain waves) represented in visual isolation from other modular body systems. This reduction suggests that isolated systems produce data that is deeply meaningful alone, outside of its role in complex body systems. For example, visual stills, animations in drug advertisements routinely represent Depression disorders as resulting from sick serotonin systems, though neuroscience tells us that serotonin is but one element in a (complex) system that creates mood, which is, of course, also enormously impacted by environmental elements.  (Gardner 2007)

206 Leave a comment on paragraph 206 0 [3] Nikolas Rose laments that the “recoding of everyday affects and conducts in terms of their neurochemistry is only one element of a more widespread mutation in which we in the West… have come to understand our minds and selves in terms of our brains and bodies.” (2003, 46).

207 Leave a comment on paragraph 207 0 [4] Thacker notes that scientist-theorists, such as Hans Moravec, Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky, and Richard Dawkins, have all been associated with this line of thinking. Organizations such as the Extropy Institute and the World Transhumanist Organization have also been instrumental in creating networked communities based on transhumanist and extropian ideas.

208 Leave a comment on paragraph 208 0 [5] These films offer tales we have consumed since 1968, where advanced (alien) minds use computer technology to takeover humans  (2001 Space Odyssey), where cognitive enhancement is achieved via drugs and virtual reality (Lawnmover Man), and where technologies can remove or replace memories in our brains (Johnny Mneumonic).

209 Leave a comment on paragraph 209 0 [6] For Deleuze and Guattari the bachelor machine creates an alliance between the (split) desiring machine and body without organs. The subject created confuses herself with the bachelor machine–it autoerotically ‘gives birth’ to the subject.

210 Leave a comment on paragraph 210 0 [7] New monitors entering the market, with best EEG pickup, rivaling the Epoch monitor, are InteraXon’s Muse monitor, and Mynd by NeuroFocus, that offer more mobility, but a higher price tag, comparable to Epoch.

211 Leave a comment on paragraph 211 0 [8] Roberts notes the changing image of the feminine across eras at Star Trek, that nevertheless still maintain strong representations of stereotypical femininity, incluidng contemporary versions of the show (eg Star Trek, Next Generation), featuring Counselor Deanna Troi, whose power comes from extraordinary empathic abilities.

212 Leave a comment on paragraph 212 0 [9] Also in keeping with culturally popular science fiction films that sexualize women via technolgoical aptitude are Luc Besson’s 1900, Nikita (sexualising the technically able killer Nikita), and the Tranformers films, particularly 2009 Revenge of the Fallen, featuring highly sexualized female robot (played by Megan Fox).

213 Leave a comment on paragraph 213 0 [10] Gardner and team’s critical research-creation work with EEG monitors can be found at our URL: www.Mobilelab.ca

214 Leave a comment on paragraph 214 0 [11]  Our work can be found at mobilelab.ca.

215 Leave a comment on paragraph 215 0 [12] Much hacking and experimentation with EEG devices, however, is afoot.  Alongside the busy past decade of biotechnical research, a parallel community of DIY science researchers have both replicated and critiqued computational assumptions in their subcultural (garage and basement) practices.  Game hackers, many of them youths, participate in augmenting their cognitive abilities in their bedrooms with their PS3 consoles.  The long art and music histories of tactically employing biometric data and data processing now moves into EEG use. [12] Today, a group of Toronto artists at the Site3 coLaboratory use the NeuroSky brainwave sensor in public performances to generate seven-metre flames by connecting the headset to a gas canister, which fires when certain mindstates are reached. Non-scientist DIY communities and “hackspaces,” autonomous creative urban studios developing tactical uses of off-the-shelf technology, widely employ consumer brainwave sensors as new platforms for tinkering (Wray 2011). . Experimenters with to augment their uses for surprising and creative effect. A quick search on hackedgadgets.com gives an idea of the disparate ways in which consumer EEG devices have been transformed by hackers and DIY practitioners.

Page 102

Source: http://adareview.fembotcollective.org/ada-issue-3-feminist-science-fiction-peer-review/level-2-review/from-lab-to-living-room-transhumanist-imaginaries-of-consumer-brain-wave-monitors/