Talk:Emotiv Systems/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article

This article is written like an advertisment. --129.175.240.240 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is LOADED with unsourced and speculative statements. No one working with clinical EEGs (or invasive recordings, for that matter) would claim to be detecting "conscious [higher level] thoughts." I agree with anon editor above me that this article is written like an advertisement, and is frustratingly misleading to the general public who are being led to think that neuromancer or the Matrix is just around the corner. I'll probably buy an EPOC and want to give it all the credit it deserves--find a source, evidence, and great. But wikipedia isn't the place for Emotiv's PR department or ungrounded speculation. (Also, for "reading the mind" stuff, the burden of proof is a PEER-REVIEWED article. An emotiv press release saying they can do this doesn't count.) -- VSEPR (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely unbiased, but I'll give you the context so you can interpret my words. I am interested in Emotiv because I am an artificial-intelligence researcher and I am trying to work toward combining that with people's thoughts, something Emotiv says their device does in a few specific dimensions like "rotate left" or "invisible". Last year I asked Emotiv if they would allow me to connect my open-source software to their device, but they said no. We have no relationship.

This Emotiv page on Wikipedia is important to keep because its about 1 example (possibly the most advanced except in the military) of a new kind of neuroscience device. There are a small number of examples.

I agree it could be reworded to sound less like advertising, but theres some things you can not say about Emotiv without it being advertising. Wikipedia should make exceptions for rare cases like this. Please keep the Emotiv page.

User VSEPR wrote above: "No one working with clinical EEGs (or invasive recordings, for that matter) would claim to be detecting 'conscious [higher level] thoughts.'"

I'll respond to VSEPR: For "clinical EEGs", I would agree, because a "clinic" is a medical building. Emotiv does neuroscience research and artificial-intelligence to interpret the signals. They are not using the failed "clinical" machines you wrote about. I have used an EEG-based hardware+software that a college-student created, which was much less advanced, and I was able to consciously control a few things on a computer screen after learning it for a few minutes. As an advanced AI researcher, with a little knowledge of neuroscience, I say Emotiv probably will succeed in selling many devices and getting games made for them that are fun to play by mental control. I think Emotiv is not faking it. Please keep the page.

BenRayfield (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Python library for the Emotiv EPOC headset

• Python library for the Emotiv EPOC headset on Github —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.139.27 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what WP policy is on something like this. I'm personally glad it's here as it helps answer some questions that the company isn't exactly forthcoming with but this is probably some kind of break with their terms of service. What I'm saying is, does that kind of legalese actually effect what WP presents as information? For example, does WP describe pirate versions of Microsoft development tools?--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Written like an advert

This article looks to have been written by the company itself to promote its own product. Also, lack of dates in some cases ("the product will be shipped with a game", "there will be a website", etc.) Rewrite, or remove? --mgaved (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement, but necessary due to lack of other sources

I found it due to useful Open Source Reference about Python. I am planning on getting one and there is not much useful information, but as long as they allow open source I will stay on board. I found the critiques extremely helpful, this is an advertisement copy paste, so I would love to see some unbiased opinions here. Timothy William Edgin (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)