I don't know

I thought I understood the point that was being made about all computer art being reducible to binary code, but I'm confused by some of the latest stuff. Cramer and Gabriel seem to think that it's a mistake to look at digital art as a media art in the sense that analog representations are media art, because this focuses rather on the arbitrary image on a computer screen that represents the collection of ones and zeros that is "really" the work. It would appear to me that this is missing the point--isn't computer art interesting because of the different processes that lead to similar results, i. e. visual representations on a monitor, verbal or otherwise? So we have Joyce creating a collage of words, some from different languages, with several different levels of meaning. I guess the idea is to play with meaning, and see the different ways it can shift around--there were those who thought Finnegan's Wake was complete nonsense, but meaning has certainly been found in it. How does the concept of "meaning" apply to the poem Gysin and Burroughs made with an algorithm?

Anyway, this is a pretty cool thing: http://kotaku.com/358459/pc-psychic-controller-hits-this-year
This is probably going to be a failure commercially, but it says a lot that this kind of thing is already being mass-produced. Apparently this machine can tell apart different thoughts to execute different functions. I wonder how far away that is from being able to represent an internally visualized image on the screen?