Posthumous Messages in Interactive Bottles

For a great deal this post is an extension to my earlier post, The Ghost Leaving the Shell. There I discussed how a system designer leaves an echo of their “ghost” in the design. You might like to read that before reading this entry, but you should be able to understand this post without it too. Both of these entries are actually in the very core of this blog, discussing the question of whom we are interacting with, when using digital services.

The remake of Total Recall movie, once again featured a personal message in the form of an interactive hologram. The idea is that you interview the hologram for the information that was sent to you. Also in I, Robot, Dr. Lanning had left, before his death, a holographic note to the murder investigators, where the message was something rather of a riddle. Finally, at least, the hologram confirmed to the main character: “That, detective, is the right question.” Continue reading “Posthumous Messages in Interactive Bottles”

What’s this thing they call Big Data?

Two apparently different occurrences in my life yesterday appeared to share more synergy that I first observed.

Thinking zombieOne of these things has been puzzling me for several months already: What is this thing they call Big Data really? A mass of data generated so fast that it cannot be practically managed by conventional methods. So, how much can be? And tomorrow we can manage more data than we could yesterday, as technology advances, so what is Big Data today might not be tomorrow? – Of course, tomorrow we will also be able to produce data faster that we were yesterday, for the same reason.

The other thing is, how my taxi driver yesterday had problems with his touch-screen system for accepting taxi calls, and I talked with him about how things are typically built, not perfect, but sufficiently good. Continue reading “What’s this thing they call Big Data?”

Private Social Media

Thinking zombieSociology is one of the fields of science that remains very vague to me. Albeit that one of my greatest favorite science fiction series, Isaac Asimov’s the Foundation is centered around a character named Hari Sheldon, who for my understanding is a sociologist. I am in the understanding that sociology is some sort of applied psychology, like my own personal field, the computer sciences, is essentially applied mathematics and physics. (I am also minoring in psychology.)

With that said, one might argue that I would probably have a clearer insight of the essence of Psychological Media, if that was a thing, than I can claim to have of Social Media, which appears to be a thing. So what kind of a thing is social media? Continue reading “Private Social Media”

Bread and circuses

Thinking zombieErkki Tuomioja asked and wondered in his blog: “What is happening to Finland?” (The entry is first in Finnish and after that in English.) He finds that “it has long been the case that irrespective of the original subject by around the twentieth comment the “discussion” will have degenerated to insane and often racist slander and libel, without any connection to the original subject.”

In general this is compatible with my proposition that people do not understand the actual forum of social media. They feel like they are just rambling in their own livingroom alone of among people they know full well. They do not see the consequences or their own responsibility of their actions in social media. Lot of the hate speech would seem to be from people who actually find themselves so small and insignificant that their actions bear no remark or they are little people trying to rally the heroes of “good” to come find and save them from the world that is too big and complex for them to completely understand and therefore evil. Continue reading “Bread and circuses”

Two Contextual Experience Models

Thinking zombieOver a year ago I posted about Frans Mäyrä’s Contextual Game Experience Model, which is aimed to analyse and understand a player’s game experience.[1] Recently I have come across another contextual model for analysing and understanding a person’s experience. John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking use their Contextual Model of Learning in their book Museum Experience Revisited to “explain and comprehend the museum experience”.[2] I understand that the model has been introduced earlier in 1992 in the earlier edition of the book “The Museum Experience”.

In a pending chapter to be published in a book[3], I discuss with Ilmari Lahti and Jouni Smed about how valid it is for all the current game instruments to be considered specifically game instruments. We included Frans Mäyrä’s Contextual Game Experience Model in the article and found the model generally applicable to a wider purpose than just games, excepting the challenge based immersion inside the core of the model. One motivation here is that we have frameworks, models and other tools appearing here and there, with the field of games and general entertainment being so widely unexplored yet. Many of these tools are bound to be overlapping, and now I’m posing the question of, to what degree are the Contextual Game Experience Model and the Contextual Model of Learning the same model.

The two models

The Contextual Model of Learning consists of three contexts: 1) the Personal Context, 2) the Sociocultural Context, and 3) the Physical Context. This is two less than in the Contextual Game Experience Model: i) the Immediate Personal Context (of digital play), ii) the Immediate Social Context (of play), iii) the Contexts Provided by the Earlier Forms (for Game and Play), iv) the Contexts for (Digital Game) Production, and v) The Wider Context of Social Norms and Values. It is also important not to forget the SCI-model (of gameplay experience) that is some kind of core of the experience, which is located inside the five contexts. It includes Sensory Immersion, Action (or Challenge) Based Immersion and Mental (or Imaginative) Immersion.

The Personal Context

In the Contextual Model of Learning context (1) the Personal Context is included a person’s “experience with the institution of museum generally, as well as experience with, and knowledge of, the content and design of the specific museum being visited.” It “also includes the visitor’s developmental level and preferred modes of learning” as well as “differences in individual interests, attitudes, and motivations for visiting.” This would seem to be split in two in Mäyrä’s model:

Experience with the institution of museum generally, the experience with and knowledge of the content and design of the specific museum being visited, for me would appear to fit well inside the (iii) Contexts Provided by the Earlier Forms of X, in the Contextual Game Experience Model, although Mäyrä’s article doesn’t describe more clearly this context than with naming it and mentioning it being a person’s “games literacy” – why not “museum literacy”, or “experience literacy”.

The visitor’s developmental level and preferred modes of learning and individual interests and attitudes and motivations for visiting (or playing or experiencing) could be sought for in the (i) Immediate Personal Contexts, which Mäyrä describes to consist of “how they play, what motivates their play – or aversion towards certain game forms.”

The Sociocultural Context

The (2) Sociocultural Context is something what a person carries into the experience as a baggage from their own society and what is embodied within the (museum/experience/game) institution itself. “In the first case, all people are born into, and develop within, a cultural milieu, a milieu of shared beliefs, customs, values, language, and thought processes.” Each person “likely experiences the museum differently as a result.” Also the “museums themselves are created by people with cultural values and beliefs that shaped their decisions about what they deemed to be valuable, worthy of keeping and caring for, and important to communicate to visitors.” (This is currently a hot topic itself in GamerGate etc. where people are more and more interested in the values and stereotypes that are carried inside popular culture[4].) “In addition to cultural factors, every museum visitor is strongly influenced by social interaction factors within the museum. Most people visit museums in a group, and those who visit alone invariably come into contact with other visitors and museum staff.”

This context splits into three in the Contextual Game Experience Model: The (ii) Immediate Social Contexts concern how the person’s “closest people regard game playing, the immediate historical and situational reasons they provide for digital play to take this form within this particular context.” The (iv) Context for Digital Games’ Production is not as tightly connected with the player, but is contributing through the stereotypes and everything that has – shaped the museums based on cultural values and beliefs deemed valuable, worthy of keeping and caring for , and important to communicate to the user. This is all underlaid by the (v) Wider Context of Social Norms and Values.

The Physical Context

What remains, is (3) the Physical Context. “The museum is a physical setting that visitors […] enter. The physical context includes the architecture and ‘feel’ of the building […] These physical context factors strongly influence how visitors move through the museum, what they observe and what they remember.” “The smell of the elephant house at a zoo may influence how long a time certain visitors will spend watching elephants.” “Also included in the physical context are objects and events visitors interact with both prior to and subsequent to the visit, including TV shows, internet sites, books or magazines.”

I would like to fit this together with the SCI-model inside the Contextual Game Experience Model. The Action Based Immersion would aliken with the museum visitor finding their way around the museum and being able to interact with objects.The smell of the elephant would be alike the Sensory Immersion. Understanding the reasoning behind why things are in the order that they are would be alike the Mental Immersion. However, Falk and Lynn say: “Personal context variables also help us understand how and why individuals develop specific personal visit narratives, narratives that support memories of, and learning from, the visit that typically last weeks, months, and even years”, where I see that Mäyrä also refers to narratives in the SCI-model’s Mental Immersion. This part may not be as clearly analogous between the two models, although it’s not completely dissimilar either.


Falk and Lynn’s introductory summary of the Contextual Model of Learning(?) finally introduces a fourth heading: “Time”, which “although […] is not a context per se, […] is a crucial fourth dimension of this model.” The idea here seems to be that the model is a living one for each individual. As Herakleitos said: “You can’t step in the same river twice.” Each visit to the museum is different. Within the same principle, each play of a digital game is different, based on the Contextual Game Experience Model, and all meaningful experiences are different.

Further thoughts

During this analysis, I noticed that Frans Mäyrä’s renaming of the Challenge Based Immersion of the SCI-model into Action Based Immersion seems to actually resolve the difficulty of generalising the use of the model to a wider field than just game design. In the article by me, Lahti and Smed[3] we thought about using something called “negative challenge based immersion” in cases where better immersion is achieved through lack of hindrances, instead of tacking challenges. This was probably inspired by the controversy around the Big Five personality trait “neuroticism”, which is the only trait where higher values tend to be considered worse than the lower values. The trait is therefore often addressed as it’s complement.

I also feel like noting here my thoughts about meaningful interactions vs. mere interactions that I have mentioned earlier in the post Awareness of awareness. This is derived from me reading an article by Jacucci[5], where they attribute to John Dewey a definition: “mere experience is passive endurance and acceptance of events, while an experience stands out ‘from the evennes of passing hours and years'”. “Mere experience”, and “an experience” or in my attempt to be more explicit: “meaningful/significant experience”.


[1] Mäyrä, Frans. “The contextual game experience: On the socio-cultural contexts for meaning in digital play.” Proceedings of DiGRA. 2007.

[2] Falk, John H., and Lynn D. Dierking. Museum Experience Revisited. Left Coast Press, 2012.

[3] Suovuo, Tomi (bgt), Lahti, Ilmari, and Smed, Jouni. “Game Design Frameworks and Reality Guides” (submitted chapter)

[4] Magowan, Margot. “‘Minions’ most sexist kids’ movie of the year, rated Triple S for gender stereotyping”, (2015) Referred to in 15.7.2015

[5] Jacucci, Giulio, Antti Oulasvirta, and Antti Salovaara. “Active construction of experience through mobile media: a field study with implications for recording and sharing.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11.4 (2007): 215-234.



The mind is a palace

Thinking zombieEarlier I wrote about Graziano’s attention schema theory. I recently discussed shortly the theory with a psychology researcher in person. The researcher appeared abhorred to perceive the theory rejecting free will. I disagree.

Firstly I was a bit surprised at the reaction. Already in the current elementary course I’m taking on psychology, they have told me that apparently our decisions are formed in our brains well before we become aware of them.[1] Am I to assume that these results are the most abhorred ones, as this would suggest that our conscious mind couldn’t affect at all the definitions we make? We were even introduced the possibility that even if we don’t have a free “will”, we might have a free “won’t”.

I see no problems here. No need to call off punishments for criminals due to them not having had a freedom of choice upon their behaviour. (Here I could branch widely into the discussion of the philosophy of justice systems, but it is not the point of this text.)

I perceive here overrating of the role of consciousness. It is not so that our mind and personality would be our consciousness. It would seem that our mind is something of a palace, where the consciousness is the emperor.

The palace has other actors that function independently. They come up with ideas and proposals and bring them forth to the emperor’s court. There the emperor can consider them and they can be commented by other actors – other parts of the mind/brain. This court is the emperor’s focused awareness.

Some proposals are actually executed bypassing the court, if not most of them. The palace guards will not run to the court to ask every time someone approaches the gate for entry. Only if the emperor’s sworn enemy, or something else problematic approaches. This equivalent for us to greeting and smiling automatically to people who greet and smile to us, unless we have a dislike for them; or to inhaling automatically, unless there is a strange odour.

Something being unconscious or subconscious doesn’t mean that it isn’t a part of what we are. It just means that the palace we are running is executing decisions without confirming them at the court first. Certainly, these decisions may often in the court be constrained due to decency and other causes of “self-control”. It doesn’t, however, mean that the decisions wouldn’t be what the court has been all along teaching the mind, or what the mind has learned through the experiences on the outcomes. If the emperor always scowls the guards after the visit of person A, the guards will be less likely to open the gates for A, without at least confirming from the court first. If the guards always have to stop a big fight at the court yard after letting person B in, even if the emperor appears delighted of the visit (and even the fight) they will learn to go ask the court, if person B should really be let in, rather than automatically opening the gate. And they typically will obey the court’s final order, unless the court is drunk and unresponsive to the question, or the problem is a phobia or such.

This is well compatible with the neurological point of view to the brains. There are separate areas specialised for separate tasks. They are given tasks that they process and they will contact the consciousness about the tasks with different levels of enthusiasm. There is the competition for the attention. The tasks come in from senses or other neurons. Cone and rod cell activations initiate tasks in the visual cortex. The visual cortex may raise an alert on something of importance, which can affect how the auditory cortex starts to focus on incoming signals from a certain direction. The consciousness may demand attention on some particular detail. It is like the palace guards can be alerted to open the gate through the request of the arriving person, or by the palace cleaner wanting to get the light in through the open gate, or by the order of the court.

So, our mind is a palace that is ruled by the emperor of our consciousness. The emperor is really only the main director, who doesn’t have it’s own initiative. All ideas arise from the lackeys in the palace, who come forth with proposals and the emperor just confirms them. Any dilemmas too arise with different lackeys having conflicting proposals – or possibly just one lackey having several proposals in conflict with each other. The palace could be run without the emperor, and possibly within less intellect animals it is so. Their palaces are more modest and reaction to triggers is more instinctively direct and less constrained.

The important thing is that you are not the emperor. You are the whole of the palace. Your consciousness, the emperor, is only one part of your personality.

[1] – Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition. Fried, Mukamel & Kreiman. 2011

(Artificial) Intelligence is not Possible Without Sensors and Manipulators

It is not possible to have (artificial) intelligence without having sufficiently functional and free mechanisms for sensory input from the surrounding reality and for manipulating it. Continue reading “(Artificial) Intelligence is not Possible Without Sensors and Manipulators”