Monday, April 22, 2013

More Thoughts: Ideas and Image Broadcasting

Sorry, I wrote kind of sloppy; I was trying to get the gist down as quickly as possible. Eh, just more thoughts on Image Broadcasting / Projection Theory. The bottom part hints at a real-world example. Most of this is common sense, just from my point of view...

How does a person know that they are making a difference...? How many people does one person affect...?

How does anyone know anything...? My previous thoughts on truth lead me to: 'truth is relational' (although we can argue that truth is constant). The truth I am talking about is the truth that we can verify through our senses and the ideas that are evoked via communication with one another. The type of idea I am talking about is the generic idea, but also is defined as a 'feeling' accompanied with a thought, a visualization or other replay of one's physical senses (in the mind). 

I am lead to believe that we share similar characteristics between our truths because we (people) identify or judge similarity via the 'idea' that is evoked when communicating with other people. This lead me to realize that communication is basically one person evoking an idea within himself, or one person projecting a message of some sort designed to evoke an idea in another person, and if recognized by the other person, will have been evoked in them as well. If there are no similarities in both people's 'truths', then neither person will feel the same as the other. A person cannot evoke an idea in another person if they have never felt or realized that idea. This also lead me to realize that the evoking of ideas is a conditioning process, i.e. humans have to learn how to evoke the idea via conditioning, and if it is not learned then the idea will not be evoked when it is supposed to be stimulated.

We can take language as an example. If someone who only speaks Russian greets someone who only speaks Mandarin, the idea that was evoked in the Russian speaker will not be evoked in the Mandarin speaker (solely based on speech). Yet, we can say that both the greetings from Russian and Mandarin will generally evoke the same idea, it is just WHAT evokes them that is different for each person. Language is an example of something that needs the conditioning process to evoke ideas.

Now an interesting question we can pilfer from this is whether or not ideas can be evoked in nontraditional ways that are counter to regular communication, i.e. can we evoke the 'hello' idea in people who speak totally different languages without using speech or hand gestures, but some other method (such as the objects in the room). Basically, what we'd have to do is find out is what basic 'things', or identifiers, evoke the 'hello' idea and systematically put them in the same room or place as the person. This is a simple example that could be expounded upon.

So we know that ideas are moreover evoked via stimuli because we are conditioned to evoke them. The Image Broadcasting / Projection Theory basically says that people broadcast other people's motives through their behavior, so obviously ideas are evoked through behavior but a question that leads from this is whether image broadcasting / projection works from inanimate objects.

If the answer to this question is YES, then all things physical can carry and project motives (which seems sort of magical (not real), but it is interesting none-the-less). It is not short of propaganda and television, which, arguably, seem to evoke ideas in people even though they are 'inanimate'. However, I was thinking of some object even more inanimate than that, like a book.

If the answer is NO, then motives can only be carried by humans which leads to the revelation that the motive behind propaganda technique would be useless if there wasn't a complete network of human beings to carry the motive from the creator and pass it through the network.

Back on subject, so how do we know how many people we affect? An answer for this is, WE DON'T AFFECT ANYONE. If an 'affector' is everything within a person that can be used to create an idea that can be evoked then we carry the same affectors that have been around since the beginning of human life, meaning, a person can only evoke an idea from another person who has been conditioned, however, we all carry the potential to be conditioned. Nothing gets passed, physically, but it is sort of like a virus in that it can be passed via abstractly, but different in that we all have affectors: they are within us in dormant mode until we make an idea, or are conditioned to evoke one.

So, what I might be saying is, all human communication is just the evoking of ideas by people using stimuli that can be 'taken-in' through our five senses.

This is interesting because we can predict what people will do after evoking an idea in them, we can base our technology off of the ideas that are evoked in people, and we'll know what a person has experienced by getting all of the identifiers that are associated with certain ideas. On the technology end, we might be able to read user's thoughts, however that would be secondary to being able to tell what a user has experienced. Not only that, but, perhaps, based on image decay, we would be able to tell by a coefficient how many people the conditioned idea has gone through or even possibly how many people were present at the time the idea was conditioned or the image broadcast / projected.

How many people does one person affect...? How do we know they are making a difference...? Maybe soon we can try a network experiment for maybe 100 or more people in which we can test the theory out. The network will be dynamically drawn in a hierarchical / web diagram that will be interactive and we'll have each person behind a screen and in a different physical place...



Wednesday, April 3, 2013

A Brief Thought: Image Broadcasting via Network Hosts (Resonance)

This idea is very, VERY, interesting. I don't think I've heard of anyone trying it out, on any website or video game whatsoever. Websites today are very one dimensional, including the social networks. There are endless possibilities with implementing this. I will definitely include it in my current project...

│ Image Broadcasting via         
 Hosts in a Network (Resonance) │

"You could do something BIG with your psychological energy, if it is focused. When it comes to affecting other people, this remains to be researched. I have no final say on the matter as of yet, but I have one initial theory..."

The idea stems from, "What if people broadcast their motives through other people...?" Meaning, other people's motive's are accomplished through us by our 'picking-up' of their motives, whether it be consciously or not, and being the main transportation for those motives to be broadcast to other people. The theory is, we are the vessels by which other people broadcast their motives and other people are our vessels. We pick up another person's motives by coming in contact with the people that carry the motive. This means that we don't necessarily have to know or directly come in contact with the original source in order to broadcast the motive from the original source.

This is very interesting because based on this, a whole entire image or some other type of complexity could be intertransferred or carried between a network of people and, if deciphered correctly, would basically yield the same image as the source no matter who it is deciphered from.

This is also very similar to a source of energy or an energy beam that has been diffused into the atmosphere, then replicated hundreds of times by hosts, then refocused back into a copy of its original state. All of that would depend on the arrangement and focalization of different nodes in the network. No social network I know of has used this theory at all for any type of innovative interaction between the users in the network.

Of course we have to deal with image decay but the whole concept is very interesting. Obviously, if this were implemented in a social game there would be other factors that also play into this including 'resonance' and 'behavior'...



A Brief Thought: What is RIGHT...?


In my previous post I brought up my argument that life is a transition from the known to the unknown. Because it is constant, the inevitability of the unknown upon us (or death) is used to facilitate or conduct the overarching business of trading (buying or selling) emotional and psychological states or well beings. This is all done on a stage with invariable boundaries, i.e., at this moment in time, humans cannot get up and choose to leave the 'business' because that choice is non-existent (where would we go...? and furthermore, would we bring our problems with us...?).

Because this life is arguably a transition stage we can assume that there is at least one other 'stage' beyond this. That is the definition of transition, to lead from one thing to the next. And if we can assume that there are other stages besides life, then the ideology that life should be thought of as 'the only thing that matters and that we should base all of our decisions on' diminishes in value (I could go into this later). So, if life is not AS important as it usually is, my question is, is it right to ignore another human being who we are aware of and is suffering psychologically...?

There is a man crying for help in the roadside. Do we help, or do we NOT help...? The argument that says we should help basically stems from the popular right thing to do.

"Why wouldn't you help a man who is suffering...?"

The argument to NOT help basically says,

"Well, since life is a transition stage and there is a stage after this then it doesn't really matter what I do because the man that is suffering psychologically won't suffer forever or I won't be here forever to be able to see him suffer and do something about it..."

What is RIGHT anyways, and why do all my arguments seem to point to its definement...?


Video Game Studies: What makes a successful video game...?

"Life is a business."

Some people might say that the world's oldest profession is prostitution. However, I argue, since the beginning of intelligence on earth, life itself has been and continues to be a business for those involved.

Life is a business and it can be similarized to a market, i.e. the "transition market": 'transition' because we go from 'knowing' to the 'unknown', the inevitability that is always constant: 'market', in that it exists on a stage within invariable boundaries that is prey for those who wish to fully profit from that constant inevitability. The currency being used and acquired is psychological. It is an error to think that the significance of a trade ends with the product itself. The value is ultimately determined by the psychological state of the consumer. Hence, a dollar bill, or $1.00, is only a representation of the emotional and psychological well-being that is attained after giving it away.

"I'll help you feel more emotionally stable if you help me feel more emotionally stable."

An interesting question for future ponderance: What if currency could be traded psychologically...? This would be a literal take on psychological currency. Do you see where I'm going with this question...? An example: In a normal, current, real-life scenario there are two people trading with each other for the resulting psychological welfare that will follow. Man A trades $29.00 to Man B who gives him a new release of the movie, 'The Hobbit'. The physical trade is the two objects, the $29.00 and The Hobbit. The psychological results (or trade) is Man A feeling 'good' while watching The Hobbit (for reasons we will discuss later) and Man B feeling 'good' because he spent the $29.00 on a video game. Here's where the novelty comes in. Instead of each man trading physical objects, i.e. representations of the resulting psychological and emotional states, in the proposed future scenario, Man A and Man B will both directly trade those states. This could be literal as in the trading of physical synthetic or manufactured 'good' 'feelings'. It could also mean trading psychological states via brain waves (facilitated through some sort of technological device). All this points towards another argument and the realization that emotions and psychological states being traded by themselves relinquish the connection of behaviors previously associated with the emotional and psychological states. I know that has been thought of before, but I thought I'd bring it up. More thoughts on this later (also, other ideas can derive from this)...

I began thinking about this after studying successful video games and looking into why they were successful. Why did I love playing certain video games earlier in my life, and on a side note, why did I lose that initial fervor...? Perhaps the formula for a successful video game does not work on everyone in certain situations, however, as is proven, it obviously does work for a mass amount of people. I wanted to figure out why, because, ultimately, I want to put the research into practice (perhaps creating something similar to a video game...).

"If you keep a group of people entertained, they will be more docile."

To start the research I basically did some easy empirical observation. I searched through Google and did some quick skimming (as my library did not have any books or articles). Taking from several very successful video games, most notably two Nintendo RPGs (Role Playing Games), I jotted down all of the ideas that I thought, or arguably, made them successful. Below is the summation of all of them into a STRONG characteristic of successful video games that is so potent it is used in almost every entertainment field or industry.

░│ Keyword: │ HERO COMPLEX (VG)      │░
░│ Property │ Illuminati Reference │░
░│          ├───────────────────┤░
░│          │ quest collectibles   │░
░│          ├────────────────────┤░
░│          │ evil villain         │░
░│          ├────────────────────┤░
░│          │ savior complex       │░
░│          ├────────────────────┤░
░│          │ good vs. evil        │░
░│          ├────────────────────┤░
░│          │ customizeable        │░
░│          ├───────────────────
░│          │ puzzle gameplay      │░
░│          ├───────────────────
░│          │ engrossing plot      │░
░│          ├────────────────────┤░
░│          │ target audience      │░