Some people say that life is a game. I’ve been thinking about a new game, concerning life. Happiness is one of my goals. Happiness often involves having fun. Games are fun. Another goal is power. So, I thought of something to combine the two: The Manipulation Game. The game where the goal is to manipulate people. But what to make people do… How about to make people happy? It’s a hard goal to make people happy. There should be more people in on the game. But to be competitive would defeat the purpose. It should be a cooperative game. Yes, a cooperative game for the best and the brightest to manipulate the rest into happiness.

From one (to some) twisted point of view, this would seem a noble goal. It seems that people value freedom more than happiness. I need to examine the reasons behind it some more.

Anyway, I’m going to explore The Manipulation Game in a story I’m writing, of the same name. (Either will be posted here or on psycho-ward.org)

Tomorrow: Harry Potter 5 review, maybe

But first, there was this fairly large fire right near my house today. I think I see news crews (or someone with cameras) out there right now, 10:44 PM PST. Well, before we figured out there was a fire, there was a big boom. Obviously, fireworks. Obviously, illegal fireworks. Especially since there was a fairly large, prominently displayed sign on the street leading up to our hill that says, “No fireworks east of Mission Blvd.” There’s a lot of dry brush on the hills, and I could see why they weren’t allowed. However, ironically, there was a fireworks stand at the little corner shops, which is next to the huge sign. Oh, if any of you saw it on the news, no I didn’t have to evacuate or anything. Damn news media makes everything out to be bigger than it is. Usually, I light fireworks at someone else’s place, still in the same city, but not this year. Actually, I went to Berkeley. Cold cold place next to the water. And an impressive fireworks show. That’s why I didn’t really post yesterday.

I’m now hosting Calmok’s Adventures via psycho-ward.org. You might want to check that comic out.

The Institute For Creating Fictional Persons was something I made up a while ago. It’s a type of conspiracy organization I made up. It’s job is to create fake people.

Online, it’s practically impossible to tell if who you’re talking to is really that person. Let’s say you talk to me on Instant Messenger, and you’ve never talked to me before. How do you know I am who I say I am? You can’t. Let’s take this one step further: How do you even know that I’m a real person? Say, someone created a sophisticated experimental AI. Similar to SmarterChild, only with more sayings, and random time delays. You could be talking to a robot.

Take it one more step further: Let’s say the people you meet in real life aren’t really people. Maybe holograms. Maybe androids. Could you know?

An organization full of people devoted to creating fake people. Making up histories for them. Making up places for them to go. Making up things for them to say.

I’m not a real person writing this weblog. This was a bunch of people writing this weblog, trying to create the consistent voice of one person writing it. Only you didn’t know it.

Okay, I lied. But how can you tell?

Power. My goal. Other’s goal. Maybe everyone’s goal? World domination seems to be the impossible dream. No one has every been leader of the entire Earth. Ever. Is it even possible?

I want power. To gain power, you must be in positions of power. I’ve contemplated this. I’ve thought about propaganda. But then, I don’t think I’ll really have power. Propaganda is worked on in groups. Would I just be another worker?

I’ve thought about being president. Then again, the president may just be a figurehead. Any political office, they could all be figureheads.

I’ve thought about owning a corporation. It seems that won’t be around long. They’re trying to make it so that CEOs can’t make that much.

I’ve even contemplated dictator of a third world country. Too many coups. Too many rebels.

Then, who really has power? I say, no one. No one really has power. There is no one behind or in the scenes controlling everyone. There is no easy role I can fulfill to suddenly have the amount of power I want.

Look at the fourth definition of power at dictionary.com: “The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.” Power boils down to control. This includes other’s lack of control over you.

People do have some amount of power, but there are always others who have control over them. In the end, it’s a complex web. There’s no one actually on top. Everyone effects each other in different ways.

It may seem obvious that there is no one person with all the power. But just ponder it. There’s no one actually in control. We’re all just ambling along, in a constant power struggle in which no one ever wins. There’s no control. Perhaps that’s one reason gods are invented. Some people need something controlling us because we’re really just out of control.

The reason why no one ever actually has control is because they aren’t controlling people’s minds. People still have (or at least what feels to be) free will. They can’t stop people from thinking. Unless you control every single movement, people can still disobey your will.

Eventually, you will slip up, or someone else will. Then, it all comes undone.

Absolute power is unattainable because people’s minds can’t be controlled.

But, someday, maybe that can be changed…

Ian wrote: “i’m actually responding to that thing you wrote in march about how you wanted to be a guy that makes propaganda. admitedly this would be cool, but i really don’t feel it would satisfy your hunger for power. there wouldn’t be any face to face gratification. The guys that make the propaganda aren’t the ones that decide what it says. you’ve probably already thought about this, but incase you haven’t, do.

“it seems much more like the kind of job that someone like mr. peabody would like. puzzle after puzzle after puzzle. big ones. important ones. those are the people that make the propaganda not the power hungry ones. the power hungry ones don’t really have any power. they just think they do. thats why their in a political office, so they can’t screw anything up. it’s like a cage for them. keep um there until they die or the species falls into anarchy.”

I’m currently wondering what can ever satisfy my desire for power, short of world domination. Another question arises from this: Who really holds power? Looks like another blog topic. (Sometime this week, perhaps.)

Nice essay, Ian. I didn’t know that was one of the topics for spin-mastah-nelli’s class, but you were in a different period. Any type of punishment for crimes can’t really serve as a deterrent because criminals, for the most part, don’t believe they’re going to get caught. The best deterrent would be for criminals to be sure that they couldn’t get away with crimes. I’ve never completely made up my mind about capital punishment, but I look at it as a punishment, not a deterent. So, crimes, deterrents, capital punishment, more topics, for other days.

Yes, Lloyd, I probably could get more robot to follow a red line, it’s just that my sheet comes with a big black line, not a big red line. The light percentage values for the light sensor would be more ambiguous, but I think it would work.

Diana said: “now in my opinion the strongest are the ones who have the power BUT HURT SELECTIVELY those who deserve that pain…( comparison with God)….could be not sure… anybody can be evil…but its much harder to stay good……..and well the ones who have the power supposed to pick things that are much harder to do…… kind of complicated but i hope u got the point….”

Hurting selectively doesn’t seem to be a different choice. It’s not like you’re forced to hurt people. You still choose. Choosing to hurt selectively just seems like a rationalization. Eventually, you’ll rationalize hurting others who you otherwise would have thought “undeserving” of the pain.

I didn’t answer all the comments, but some didn’t need answering.

Note: Will answer unanswered comments tomorrow.

“Don’t talk to strangers.” How many countless times have we heard that admonition? I wonder if it was really such a good idea to saturate kids’ minds with that idea. During my SAT II examinations, there were a bunch of students all standing or sitting in line. Unless they knew each other, they weren’t talking. That meant that there were long stretches of kids, all equally bored, just standing there into empty space. What could be more fun? Why, perhaps talking.

Maybe it’s just California, but I’m noticing a total dearth of interaction between people who don’t know each other very well. Any interaction is strictly business. “Excuse me,” etc.

I don’t like this direction. People point out how the concept of the neighborhood is dying; I think this is worse. We’ll completely shut ourselves off from everyone we don’t work with, or need to know. Sure, you can still meet some people, but life is more dull this way.

We could suggest the exact opposite: Don’t not talk to strangers. (Emphasis on the double-negative.) Maybe this will make those strangers less lonely. Maybe they won’t feel so angry and obligated to exact vengeance on anyone within reach. If more people know the “stranger,” that makes it more likely to catch that person if s/he ever does anything wrong.

If people are more friendly to each other, perhaps it will help stop gangs. They won’t have to shelter themselves with other deadly people.

It could bring back the concept of a neighborhood where everyone watches out for each other.

It can make people more open. As they interact with more people, they will learn new things. They will come to see different viewpoints. They can accept more diversity.

More importantly, we can stand in line and not be completely bored. We can wait in an office and not try to ignore everyone around us.

Being more friendly reciprocates. Encouraged to talk, almost everyone should become more friendly. It’ll simply make everyone happier. We won’t have to worry about being in a cold, harsh, unwanting environment because we can simply make a friend of who we’re with.

The moral: “Talk to strangers.”

[11/08/03 – EDIT: I have replied to the comment for this entry.]

The Broken Window Fallacy is very insightful when dealing with economics. I don’t want to rephrase something I just gave a link to, so just click it, then hit the back button. It’s okay, I’ll still be here.

Alright, done reading? I hope you read it, or already know what it is, or else you might get a bit confused.

My contention is that the Broken Window Fallacy applies not only to economics, but to emotion and ethical issues also. For example, people say that Sept. 11 brought everyone closer together, so it actually caused some good. But was that good merely diverted from elsewhere? There is no doubt in my mind as to the heroism of those firefighters on that day, but how many more lives could’ve been saved by those who had died on that day? They saved lives, but those were lives that shouldn’t have been in danger in the first place.

Those families were consoled by others, but what of the family members’ love that they’ve been deprived of? What I’m saying is that energy for emotions has been diverted from somewhere else, not created. We’re not looking at the hidden costs.

Another point I’m trying to make is that some people claim that even the bad people have actually caused some good. Worse crimes have led to better law enforcement. We wouldn’t need all that law enforcement if the crimes weren’t committed in the first place. It diverted good that could have been brought elsewhere. I could go on…

I’m not entirely sure if my thinking is right because emotions and ethics aren’t concrete, like money is. Moreover, I don’t think I’ve eloquently explained myself enough to convince anyone. However, it is something to chew on until I think about it some more and then write again.

Some days ago, Lloyd, via a listlog, tells me that my immortality blog reminds him of an entry, a consistently subversive thought, he did a while back.

It’s an interesting idea to think that you could live on after you die, or at least a facsimile of yourself. I’ve seen the idea explored in numerous novels, most recently I’ve read it in Steven Baxter’s Manifold trilogy. In the first book, Reid Malenfant, the main character, is brought back in the future, but it’s not really him. He’s a computer program. Of course, he feels like himself.

As exciting as the prospect is, it still doesn’t grant you true immortality. Eventually, the programs will die with the universe, along with everything else. There’s no way around it.

Lloyd mentions using a weblog to create a facsimile of that person. Although a weblog can reveal a lot, I don’t think it can reveal enough. I don’t think anything can be enough to map something as complex as the human mind expect by direct monitoring. Or perhaps an AI can take input from a weblog to help create its personality. Still, AI technology is far off. But who knows, maybe 20 years from now, I’ll be completely proven wrong. We’ll see then, won’t we.

As for me, I’m just going to live and forget about impossible dreams of immortality. If I have no hopes for immortality, I’ll be more likely to live my one life to the fullest.