Neurohacking as a Game with Time: From Chronoengineering to New Chronopolitics

 
PIIS023620070018012-0-1
DOI10.31857/S023620070018011-9
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Associate Professor, Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky
Affiliation: Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky
Address: Russian Federation
Affiliation:
Saratov State University
South Ural State University
Address: Russian Federation
Journal nameChelovek
EditionVolume 32 Issue №6
Pages102-116
Abstract

The tendency of technological overcome temporal limitations has become the basis for the introduction of the term "chronohacking" into scientific use. Within the framework of this article, the authors are trying to trace the prospects of chronohacking in the context of transformations of biopolitics in the digital age. Due to the fact that chronopolitics becomes network, the coordination of people and technology objects ("non-humans") leads to the appearance of multiple temporality modes. New digital biopolitics form the medial somatic experience of subjective time perception. Nets become a testing ground over time. They are provided within the framework of neurocentric practices of techno-pharmacological effects on the human brain in order to treat, improve and study a person named as neurohacking. The most common forms of neuroscience are the practice of self-tracking and self-logging using digital gadgets. By forming a calculable physicality, neuroscience quantifies ideas about the dynamics of the interaction of social bodies, centering them on the knowing Self. Overcoming the alienation caused by classical biopolitics, neuroscience provides a quick routinization of quantifying devices coupled/subordinate to digital biopolitics networks, including in the format of virtual and augmented reality. Unlike classical chronopolitics, digital chronopolitics not so much coordinates bodies as modifies subjective temporality, subjecting it to the experience of a discrete presence in digital worlds connected through quantification tools. This leads to the fact that through new biomedical technologies, temporary jumps at both the gene and societal levels are routinized due to the radicalization of high-tech time in the pandemic era of quarantine and remote communication. Cyberspaces of computer games, working out experiments on time experiences, supported by temporal cultural experiments, connected to the same devices that audit somatic quantification, ensure the pluralism of subjective perceptions of various social activities.

Keywordsneurocentrism, neurohacking, biopolitics, bio-power, chronoengineering, chronohacking, chronopolitics, human enhancement, quantification
Received27.12.2021
Publication date27.12.2021
Number of characters24391
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 637

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Agamben Dzh. Homo sacer. Suverennaya vlast i golaya zhizn. [Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life]. Moscow: Evropa Publ., 2011.

2. Vajsman D. Vremeni v obrez: uskorenie zhizni pri cifrovom kapitalizme [Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism]. Moscow: Izdatel'skij dom «Delo» RANHiGS Publ., 2019.

3. Gabriel M. Ya ne est mozg: Filosofiya duha dlya XXI veka. [I Am Not a Brain: Philosophy of Spirit for the 21st Century.], transl. from German. Moscow: URSS Publ., 2020.

4. Gorin D.G. Ot fenomenologii vremeni k hronopolitike [From the phenomenology of time to chronopolitics]. Koncept: filosofiya, religiya, kultura. 2019. N 4(12). P. 43–53.

5. Zhelnin A.I. Biopolitika i biopoliticheskaya ekonomiya: sush'nost konceptov [Biopolitics and biopolitical economy: the essence of concepts]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psihologiya. Sociologiya. 2019. N 3. P. 320–330.

6. Kelli K. Neizbezhno. 12 tehnologicheskih trendov, kotorie opredelyayut nashe budush'ee [The Inevitable. Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future]. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov i Ferber Publ., 2017.

7. Latur B. Peresborka socialnogo: vvedenie v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu. [Reassembling the social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.]. Moscow: HSE Publishing House Publ., 2014.

8. Oleskin A.V. Setevie strukturi kak biopoliticheskii proekt [Networking as a biopolitical project]. Vestnik Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. 2007. T. 77, N 12. P. 1084–1088.

9. Popov D.V., Polyakova N.B., Shadrin A.A., Yarkeev A. V. Hronopolitika kak politicheskaya ontologiya vremeni (biopoliticheskii aspekt) [Chronopolitics as the political ontology of time (biopolitical aspect)]. Vestnik udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya Filosofiya. Psihologiya. Pedagogika. 2021. T.31. N 1. P. 5–18.

10. Popova O. Telo kak territoriya tehnologii: ot socialnoi inzhenerii k etike biotehnologicheskogo konstruirovaniya [Body as a territory of technology: from social engineering to the ethics of biotechnological design]. Moscow: Kanon + ROOI «Reabilitaciya» Publ., 2020.

11. Skopin D. Upravlenie umershimi: disciplina i biopolitika [Managing the dead: discipline and biopolitics]. Logos. 2019. T. 29. N 2 (129). P. 82–103.

12. Fuko M. Rozhdenie biopolitik: kurs lekcii, prochitannih v Kollezh de Frans v 1978–1979 uchebnom godu [The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the College de France], transl. from French by A.V. Dyakov. St-Petersburg: Nauka Publ., 2010.

13. Fuko M. Nadzirat i nakazivat. Rozhdenie tyurmi [Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison], transl. from French by V. Naumov, ed by I. Borisova. Moscow: Ad Marginem Publ., 1999.

14. Yudin G.B. (2020) In Search of the Spirit of Neurocentrism. Book Review: Gabriel M. (2020) I Am Not a Brain: Philosophy of Spirit for the 21st Century. Moscow: URSS; Lenand. Sociology of Power, 32(2): 248–258.

15. Bauman Z. Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1998.

16. Bolton R., Thomas R. Biohackers: The Science, Politics, and Economics of Synthetic Biology. Innovations. V. 9, N 1/2. P. 213–219.

17. Bostrom N., Roache R. Ethical issues in human enhancement. New Waves in Applied Ethics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. P. 120–152.

18. Caplan A. Good, better, or best? Human Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. P. 199–210.

19. Savulescu J., Sandberg A. ‘Neuroenhancement of love and marriage: the chemicals between us. Neuroethics. 2008. N 1.1. P. 31–44.

20. Fukuyama F. Our posthuman future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus Giroux, 2002.

21. Giubilini A., Sanyal S. Challenging human enhancement. The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. P.1–24.

22. Ienca M. Neuroprivacy, neurosecurity and brain-hacking: Emerging issues in neural engineering. Bioethica Forum. 2015. V. 8, N 2. P. 51–53.

23. Koch C. A smart vision of brain hacking. Nature. 2010, V. 467. P. 32.

24. Latour B. Trains of thought: Piaget, formalism, and the fifth dimension. Common Knowledge Winter. 1997. V. 6, N 3. P. 170–191.

25. Mbembe J.-A. Necropolitics: translated by L. Meintjes [Electronic Recourse]. Public Culture. Duke University Press. V. 15. N 1. 2003. P. 11–40. URL: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/pg/ masters/modules/postcol_theory/mbembe_22necropolitics22.pdf (date of access 07.05.2021).

26. Nowotny H. Time: The Modern and Postmodern Experience. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994.

27. Wang J., O'Kane A.A., Newhouse N., et al. Quantified Baby: Parenting and the Use of a Baby Wearable in the Wild. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2017. N 1. P.1–19.

28. Wexler A. The social context of “do-it-yourself” brain stimulation: Neurohackers, biohackers, and lifehackers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2017. Vol. 11. P. 224.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up