Image Broadcasting / Projection: Intelligent Images

Not very well written. This idea is just another part or add-on to the Image Projection Theory (XJ Hall) explained in my previous posts. I'm planning on using these ideas in some interactive CG, although, I doubt that something effective could be achieved if it were limited in scale, considering what it entails.

I just thought of something while walking to Walgreens this morning. I was in my thoughts, thinking out loud as usual, and I was thinking, 

"Stop thinking out loud, pretty soon you'll start to think out loud and you won't even know it." 

Anyways, I was sort of wondering if I was ever going to have the efficacy of mind I had earlier in my life that was due to several factors including the medication I was on, and I concluded that I probably wouldn't and that I would fade into 'the grey' and be forgotten. But based on my previous thoughts, that is ultimately incorrect. 

Why is it incorrect? Well, first off, we can argue no one is ever truly 'forgotten'. We die but the effect we have on the network is bigger than what we would imagine or are able to recognize, at least by the untrained eye. You can see in my previous notes that I argue that a person lives on through their works, whatever those be. It can be mentoring someone, it can be a piece of art, it can be music or their profession. The person puts a piece of himself in everything he produces and that part of the person can be identified years after they're gone. If you've read my Image Broadcasting Theory you know I argue that people project motives that are picked up and transferred from one person to another. These are ways that people are not forgotten, even if we are unaware of their presence.

But this is not the point. I was talking out loud, 

"Yes, we all live on, none of us is forgotten. But it's not like we really do live on, because the part of us does not resemble our animated selves, unless it was intelligent..."

Intelligence...? Intelligence in a projection...? Okay, before you say that is an awesome idea, I just saw Prometheus (the movie) the other day which had the same sort of idea that I had years ago, which is similar to this idea. So, I'm no genius. But the good news is my idea is a different take.

Basically, the gist is, via Image Broadcasting we will be able to project an image that is interactive, i.e. has intelligence. In order to do this, the projection would probably stem from multiple outlets and be condensed into one experience for the user. The experience can be short and quick, or can span days and across spaces. Remember, Image Broadcasting Theory says that the Image that is being broadcast or projected can be diffused into the network but focused back into its original state. In order for the user to refocus the image into one he would have to be connected to the nodes projecting each separate part .

The intelligent projection is not singular, i.e. there are more nodes than one projecting the image via multiple outlets. There are real world examples of this today, probably not intentional, which is why I deem them 'natural projections'. 'Artificial projections' are engineered to have a specific certain effect on the user or target audience.

Soon, when I actually start working with this Theory, we will be able to tell if we can project intelligent images via the network and have people interact with the plurality of it. We could affect billions of people via this. The very exciting thing is that, because of intelligence, the image will change according to the users' reactions to it. What could this be used for...? Lots of stuff, really.

-XJ

Brief Beef: Systematic Mass Influence / Control of the Real Social Network

Sorry, I'm a little bit tired so I am just going to write the gist of the idea. I think this idea is up there, not too up there, but a good one among other ideas. Will rewrite, but for now...

Here are my original thoughts...

"all of the voices in our heads may be saying different things but they come from the same place. it's an idea that's broadcast...
analogy: like how each of our iphones displays the web but the internet is where the source is. get it...?
what if someday we could prove where the voices come from we can follow the trail to the source. it will no longer be a matter of conjecture
see, each of our t.v.s has something different on, but none the less they all broadcast a purpose, even if we can't make sense of it
what is the purpose of the Master Idea...? and can it be changed / influenced by humans...?
could humans one day control the Master Idea in a systematic way as to affect the network of billions for beneficial causes
we could connect to each humans mind through their 'voice' in a target audience group. the voice wouldn't say exactly what we want...
it'd say the 'gist' of what we want because it is interpreted by the user / target's mind only. consequently the message could be rejected"

Additional beef:
"It's like the roots of the trees or the tributaries of a river, our minds, they all go back to the source..."

Now, I'm not saying that the Master Idea is physical, although, at this moment, that is what I believe (I may be wrong). I'm saying that when we find IT, IT will be able to be studied and controlled / used for various purposes... This isn't meant to sound magical or fantastical at all, but, if it exists, as I believe it does, it is something that should be considered a very powerful instrument for the coming new age.

The future is not technology, it's how we use it.

(more on this later... tbc.)

-XJ

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...

(tbc.)

-XJ

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..."

-XJ

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'...

(tbc.)

-XJ

A Brief Thought: What is RIGHT...?

┌─────────────────┐
│ 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...?
...
(tbc.)

-XJ

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."
-anonymous

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      │░
░└──────────┴────────────────────────┘░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

(tbc...)

-XJ

Music: A Little Of My Philosophy

I'm saving this bio here for future reference.

BIO:
Played violin for 12 years. Studied Computer Graphics Technology at Purdue University.

In thinking, I guess I believe that art or work should make people think, even if it doesn't ask a question. Most artwork, if not all artwork, has a purpose even if it is not apparent to its creator. When someone creates artwork they are creating a physical representation or recording of the subliminal conscious of an artist's world or society. If you know how to pick apart pieces of artwork, one would be able to determine the artist's psychological state at the time of being. This is what I believe.

Art is like an abstract wormhole through a non-existent time. Because of its abilities to broadcast states of being to the viewer or audience, art can also be purposefully utilized to project a message adherent to a motive. Studies have shown that there is a purpose for systematic design in art that affects how the artwork is construed and how the message of the artwork is assimilated. In knowing this, it is possible to make a bigger impact, or difference, on the audience that is viewing the artwork, simply by being conscious of what makes them think (whether it is consciously or subconsciously). Countless techniques have been devised since the beginning of the study of such matters and are at our disposal for this purpose. The question then becomes, if we are able to make a bigger difference and we have the tools to do so, why aren't we doing it...? To me, knowledge of 'image broadcasting' (which applies to CG and Music) comes with a responsibility that is mandatory to uphold. Therefore, I believe that all of my work must project a message, one that is consistent with my beliefs. Arguably, this could also be called rhetoric.

This philosophy of image projection is something I want to put in my current and future projects. Right now, I'm working on producing (for the first time) a premier collaboration album as a promo and something to add to my portfolio (think 'Shock Value' for unsigned artists). Music is a part of me, but it's not ALL of me. Besides being a composer and wanting to produce for video games and films in the future, I have other plans and talents concerning CG and Art, perhaps my first loves, including merging some of my ideas with music to go into other fields such as the Video Game Industry, the Movie Industry, and the Computer Graphics Industry.

Some of the ideas I've come up with include producing mock video game and movie websites (with a mock soundtrack), for the purpose of measuring the affect they might have if they were actual productions, producing book websites for classical books without soundtracks, for the purpose of showcasing my composing abilities while practicing on non-funded projects, creating neo-social networks that utilize ideas from the music / audio component, and among other things, ultimately, one day building a new type of DAW implementing design and broadcasting techniques from CG. These are a few of my ideas and talents I have in store for XJ Hall. And one day, as you might have guessed, I want to launch my own brand / company. You might call me a jack of all trades concerning the entertainment industry. Just because I haven't done it yet, doesn't mean I don't know how.

HOW I WORK WITH OTHERS
OVERVIEW:
Give me a concept to work with and I will create the soundtrack or beat to that concept in as intelligent way as possible. This includes using new techniques such as 'literal' organization of music or melodies in a song. For instance, if you want me to make a song about the planets aligning using a mandolin, I would take that idea and start out the beat with 8 different notes in different spaces of the audio field (left 90 degrees, left 60 degrees, left 45 degrees, left 30 degrees, right 15 degrees, right 30 degrees, right 45 degrees, right 60 degrees). Then, I would emulate the movements of the planets into alignment by moving the stereo notes simultaneously into alignment over a period of time to ultimately be mono. Another example, is when I'm making a soundtrack to a book, I will use instruments that are associated with the 'image' that is trying to be conveyed. Hence, a soundtrack about a 'Lake Shore' will utilize seagull audio samples. Those are examples of how I do my work.

EXPERIENCE:
Still building portfolio... Over 150 beats, ideas, and pieces of work and counting.

TECHNOLOGY:
I have enough technology to make exemplary pieces.

-XJ