Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Ed Matuskey <MATUSKEY@***.EDU>
Subject:	Blind deckers
Date:	Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:48:53 -0700

Message no. 1 This is in regards to Chad's message about the decker born w/out eyes, eye
sockets, or an optic nerve, and whether said decker could view the world
via a camera.

My opinion? No.
Why?
There is no area of the brain that is capable of interpreting the visual input.
Where are the pictures going? Granted, this has always been a sticky subject;
you don't need your eyes to deck, but don't you still need the visual center
in your brain to interpret the signals received? Yes, the images are
formed in your brain, but they have to be formed SOMEWHERE, and the most
logical area is the vision center. W/out one of those, can you deck?
I say no. Anybody else?
-Ed
_Highlander
Damnit, I'm a decker, not a doctor!

From:	Robert Watkins <bob@********.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Blind deckers
Date:	Thu, 22 Jul 1993 14:28:31 +0000

Message no. 2 >
>This is in regards to Chad's message about the decker born w/out eyes, eye
>sockets, or an optic nerve, and whether said decker could view the world
>via a camera.
>
>My opinion? No.
>Why?
>There is no area of the brain that is capable of interpreting the visual input.
>Where are the pictures going? Granted, this has always been a sticky subject;
>you don't need your eyes to deck, but don't you still need the visual center
>in your brain to interpret the signals received? Yes, the images are
>formed in your brain, but they have to be formed SOMEWHERE, and the most
>logical area is the vision center. W/out one of those, can you deck?
>I say no. Anybody else?
>-Ed
>_Highlander
>Damnit, I'm a decker, not a doctor!
>

In "Shadowplay", the ninth novel from FASA, there is a decker who was blind
from birth. It says in there that he sees through cameras, etc, like a rigger
can. Now, I dunno if he had an optic nerve center, but if he didn't they could
probably replace it with bioware.

--
Robert Watkins
bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
************ It wouldn't be luck if you could get out of life alive. ***********

From:	Joe Bruna <jab@****.CAMPBELL.CA.US>
Subject:	Blind deckers
Date:	Thu, 22 Jul 1993 11:06:09 PDT

Message no. 3 Ed Matuskey <MATUSKEY@***.EDU> writes:

> This is in regards to Chad's message about the decker born w/out eyes, eye
> sockets, or an optic nerve, and whether said decker could view the world
> via a camera.
>
> My opinion? No.
> Why?
> There is no area of the brain that is capable of interpreting the visual inpu
> Where are the pictures going? Granted, this has always been a sticky subject
> you don't need your eyes to deck, but don't you still need the visual center
> in your brain to interpret the signals received? Yes, the images are
> formed in your brain, but they have to be formed SOMEWHERE, and the most
> logical area is the vision center. W/out one of those, can you deck?
> I say no. Anybody else?

Hurrrmmm.... That's a good question.. I would have to ask the
question, what was dead at birth. If the decker dosn't have any eyes,
dose the optic nevrve still work? If so, i would say it's a dafe bet that
somewere in his/her training to run the matrix, that they learned how
"see" again. And chummer, any decker worth thier salt would have aquired
a pair of eyes by now....

FLACK
<o
<ORK MERC FOR HIRE>
<spell casting extra>

--
jab@****.Campbell.CA.US (Joe Bruna)
The Land of Garg BBS -- +1 408 378-5108

From:	Egil Geir Brautaset <egilbra@***.UNIT.NO>
Subject:	Blind Deckers?
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 1994 17:56:06 +0100

Message no. 4 I have seen that a few people are discussing if blind deckers
can 'see' in the matrix. IMO the question is not if they
can 'see' or not, but if 'seeing' is necessary at all with
the right reality filters.

Does anyone have a comment to this?

-- Egil <egilbra@***.unit.no>

From:	Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 1994 11:48:28 CST

Message no. 5 From: Egil Geir Brautaset <egilbra%IDT.UNIT.NO@***.spcs.umn.edu>

>I have seen that a few people are discussing if blind deckers
>can 'see' in the matrix. IMO the question is not if they
>can 'see' or not, but if 'seeing' is necessary at all with
>the right reality filters.

>Does anyone have a comment to this?

As the person who (I think...) brought up the business of some blind deckers
being matrix-blind and some still being able to see there, I suppose I may as
well jump in and state that I see (ack! sorry...) no reason why a decker
would have to have matrix-vision at all - and it's not even a question of
reality filters. An MPCP written for a blind decker could be programmed to
present all information audibly or tactily almost as easily as visually.
(I say almost because there wouldn't be as many examples of source code for
such detailed presentations of data for a non-visual interface unless you
wanted to make it verbal, which would be far too slow for most decking
operations.)

(In case anyone is wondering, yes, I consider perception to be an extremely
relative phenomenon, whether astral, virtual, or physical... There are
even some further out ideas on perception that apply in all realms that I'm
not going to get into for the simple reason that English can't clearly
express them...)

esper@***.umn.edu

From:	Richard Osterhout <rcoster@******.INFONET.NET>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 1994 14:59:47 -0600

Message no. 6 having data presented as sound for a blind decker is
ok, as long as speed is not an issue...the matrix
uses visual virtual reality because it conveys
vast amounts of data in a few seconds, using icons...

how would a decker that has everything converted to
sound be able to compete in combat? it would be a
delayed process, like decking through a satlink...

also, as far as blind people go, i'm assuming that
they are blind because of damage to the occipital
lobe of the brain, where the vision section is...
otherwise, they would probably have cybereyes to
correct their defective eyeballs and would no
longer be blind...if this is the case, that the
brain is damaged, then they would not get any
of the virtual graphics in cyberspace...everything
would have to be converted to a form they could
receive...i had a friend in college who was blind
and he used his apple II with a device he put his
fingers in and it brought up the text of the screen
one line at a time in braille...

From:	Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 1994 15:11:47 -0600

Message no. 7 IMHO, it depends on how the blind decker is blind. If the decker went blind
because the retina got torched by the flash from a magnesium flare, then I'd
say matrix vision would be unaffected. If the optic nerve got slashed up some-
how, yes, I think they should still be able to see. But if they can't see
because of a malfunction in the visual sensory perception area of the brain,
they can't see.

In my mind, decking is like plugging your brain into the Internet. But even
keweler, because your brain don't run UNIX. At least mine doesnt...=-)
------------------------------------------------------------- /// ///
Gian-Paolo Primo Domenico Musumeci caris9-4@****.edu \ // / /
Systems Security Officer \ //// _/ /
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign \_ //// /
Telephone: (217) 352-9146 \___/ /
[Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) 2.3 Public Key Available] / \_
/,)-_( \_ \
(/ \\ /\\\\
The above statements are my own, and are not to be construed //
as representing the official policy of the University of Illinois. ((`

From:	Ryan Brooks <rlbrooks@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 1994 17:47:37 EST

Message no. 8 >
> having data presented as sound for a blind decker is
> ok, as long as speed is not an issue...the matrix
> uses visual virtual reality because it conveys
> vast amounts of data in a few seconds, using icons...
> how would a decker that has everything converted to
> sound be able to compete in combat? it would be a
> delayed process, like decking through a satlink...

IMHO, a blind decker would be just as effective as a decker who could see.
As for speed sakes, why couldn't a blind decker use different short burst
sounds to denote different situations. for instance, someone fires an
attack program at the decker. the Blind decker could have different
pitches of music to denote where it came from and also respond
accordingly. the human body is an amazing machine. if one sense is
knocked out, the other senses get more enhanced with a little practice.
with the decker having his deck personally maid for him, It would be easy
to get use to different short bursts of sound for different things that
occur in the matrix. So in a sense, I think a blind decker would be more
alert in the matrix than a decker who could see.

> also, as far as blind people go, i'm assuming that
> they are blind because of damage to the occipital
> lobe of the brain, where the vision section is...
> otherwise, they would probably have cybereyes to
> correct their defective eyeballs and would no
> longer be blind...if this is the case, that the
> brain is damaged, then they would not get any
> of the virtual graphics in cyberspace...everything
> would have to be converted to a form they could
> receive...i had a friend in college who was blind
> and he used his apple II with a device he put his
> fingers in and it brought up the text of the screen
> one line at a time in braille...
>

I agree with the other part.

Killian

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Sun, 20 Mar 1994 20:41:34 -0500

Message no. 9 >>>>> "RO" == Richard Osterhout
<rcoster@******.infonet.net> writes:

RO> having data presented as sound for a blind decker is
RO> ok, as long as speed is not an issue...the matrix
RO> uses visual virtual reality because it conveys
RO> vast amounts of data in a few seconds, using icons...

Turn on your radio, and tune to a station playing rock or orchestral music.
Go ahead, I'll wait. Now listen for a minute. How many different
instruments did you hear? How many chords? How many individual notes? You
can convey the same amount of information, or potentially /more/
information via sound than you can visually.

|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
| GAT d--@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+ |
| Character is what you are in the dark. --Lord John Whorfin |
|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||

From:	Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 12:21:05 +1000

Message no. 10 >
>having data presented as sound for a blind decker is
>ok, as long as speed is not an issue...the matrix
>uses visual virtual reality because it conveys
>vast amounts of data in a few seconds, using icons...
>
>how would a decker that has everything converted to
>sound be able to compete in combat? it would be a
>delayed process, like decking through a satlink...

Remember there are few more ways of comunicating than just sight.
Tacile comunication would be very fast, and if the decker were used to
it there would be bo problem with giving him/her all the info quickly, ie
for seeing that grey IC feel a twinge in the left knee, or something like
that. Or use a sim link to the emotive sections of the brain, the decker feels
different emotions when in different node (would need to use other form of
interaction as well).

In all there are many avenues for data transfer that would render sight
unnessesary.

In addition, even if the occipital region of the brain is damaged, all you
would have to do is fake the inputs to the rest of the brain to make it seem
like the decker has a working occipital region, and the decker has their sight
back. Nowhere in any of the source books does it state that the VR is
generated in a specific portion of the brain (such as the occipital region),
and as such I would be inclined to allow even blind deckers full use
of VR.

A'Deus.

From:	Richard Osterhout <rcoster@******.INFONET.NET>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 08:11:03 -0600

Message no. 11 you are all missing the point i was trying to make...

when running the matrix, a decker has a direct neural
interface with the system. someone who is using a
standard terminal, a turtle, is slower not necessarily
because they are slower (look at video game prodigies)
but because the interface is slower...the computer has
to take the time (albeit a few microsecs) to convert the
universal matrix specifications into a visual or
multimedia representation...that is where the delay in converting
the matrix into sound would come from....it takes time to
make the conversion....

now, if a blind decker is using this sound system, there is
another time lag....sound waves are slower than neural/
electrical waves...even wearing headphones, it takes time
for the sound waves to travel through the ear, and converted
to a mode the brain can understand...even though this only
may take a millisecond, that could be the difference between
life and brain fry in the matrix...

now, perhaps you could shave that time lag down by doing
the same thing a normal decker does, use a neural interface,
but channel the data in aural form into the temporal lobe
of the brain...but since the matrix uses a universal
(standardized) method of representing data, it would still
have to take time to convert it to a different mode.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| rcoster@******.infonet.net | Information is power - |
| Richard C. Osterhout | But the knowledge of how |
| Tavares, Florida | to use it is the key! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

From:	"C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 09:17:38 -0500

Message no. 12 On Mon, 21 Mar 1994, C. Paul Douglas wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 20 Mar 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> > instruments did you hear? How many chords? How many individual notes? You
> > can convey the same amount of information, or potentially /more/
> > information via sound than you can visually.
> >
> Not to get off of a subject that is going in circles anyway..Butever hear
> the one that goes a Picture is worth a thousand words???? [And do not get
> me wrong I have nothing against blind people] There is NO WAY that
> information could be transfered at the same rate as visually in an audio
> transmission..Ever hear about the 3 blind men discribing an Elephant???
> None of them were even close..And it has been measured..Visual
> information conveys 15 times more information than other forms of info
> transmission..
> ---------------------------------GRANITE
>

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 11:53:33 -0500

Message no. 13 >>>>> "CPD" == C Paul Douglas <granite@*****.net> writes:

[...]
>> None of them were even close..And it has been measured..Visual
>> information conveys 15 times more information than other forms of info
>> transmission..

It depends on what you're transmitting, and how you're transmitting it, and
how the transmitter and reciever are ``tuned'' (this includes any humans at
either end). Here's a simple example; something really bad is happening,
something very dangerous. Which conveys that meaning more, a flashing light
that says ``DANGER'' or a loud dischord of several tones?

BTW, please cite your references.

|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
| GAT d--@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+ |
| ...and I didn't even need pants! --Dilbert [Scott Adams] |
|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||

From:	Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 10:37:05 CST

Message no. 14 From: Richard Osterhout <rcoster%PICARD.INFONET.NET@***.spcs.umn.edu>
>you are all missing the point i was trying to make...

>now, if a blind decker is using this sound system, there is
>another time lag....sound waves are slower than neural/
>electrical waves...

That's silly. Any decker would use a neural interface, regardless of
whether his vitual reality is based on sight, sound, touch, emotion, or
whatever else.

>now, perhaps you could shave that time lag down by doing
>the same thing a normal decker does, use a neural interface,
>but channel the data in aural form into the temporal lobe
>of the brain...but since the matrix uses a universal
>(standardized) method of representing data, it would still
>have to take time to convert it to a different mode.

Perhaps this would apply to use of a standard (ie, visual) MPCP with a
conversion program sitting on top of it, but if the MPCP was written from
the ground up with the intent of being used for an audio (or whatever)
presentaion of the matrix, it would run no slower than a visual version.
Remember: The Matrix is just a series of electronic data pulses. A deck's
simsense rig converts this to visual data. An audio deck would convert
directly data -> sound, not data -> vision -> sound.

esper@***.umn.edu

From:	Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 11:00:01 CST

Message no. 15 On Mon, 21 Mar 1994, C. Paul Douglas wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> > instruments did you hear? How many chords? How many individual notes? You
> > can convey the same amount of information, or potentially /more/
> > information via sound than you can visually.
> >
> Not to get off of a subject that is going in circles anyway..Butever hear
> the one that goes a Picture is worth a thousand words???? [And do not get
> me wrong I have nothing against blind people] There is NO WAY that
> information could be transfered at the same rate as visually in an audio
> transmission..Ever hear about the 3 blind men discribing an Elephant???
> None of them were even close..And it has been measured..Visual
> information conveys 15 times more information than other forms of info
> transmission..

In The Real World (TM), this applies as there's so much there that the
average human can't function effectively without relying on sight. The
matrix, however, is far simpler and most of the visual detail is just
flourishes added for psychological effect. At worst, an audio interface
would take the -2 MPCP penalty for being a reality filter.

For instance: I design a reality filter in which any kind of white ICE
appears as some form of wall, grey ICE is gooey junk lying on the floor,
and black ICE is a spikey ball flying at me. Nodes are distinct geometric
shapes, and datafiles are small pyramids. In all cases, additional detail
(exact type of ICE, for instance) is communicated by the color and/or size
of the object.

My buddy, the blind decker, runs an MPCP which presents white ICE as acoustic
guitars, grey ICE as electric guitars, and black ICE as a horn section. Nodes
fall to the percussion, with each type of node following a different rhythm,
while the strings get datafiles. Additional detail is communicated by the
chords played and volume of the appropriate instruments. There you have the
basis of an effective musical (with the guitars, I'm not sure I'd call it
orchestral) interface, and if there's anything _important_ to the survival and
effectiveness of a decker, winds are still free, node types could be relegated
to drums only (which frees up the other percussion for other uses), a piano
could be added, and mundane (ie, non-instrumental) sounds haven't even been
touched yet.

(Though that was all off the top of my head, it just so happens that I've
got an NPC decker who's an ex-championship ballroom dancer who runs on a
combination visual/musical interface...)

esper@***.umn.edu

From:	Willard Cottrell <UGCOTTRE@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 12:57:54 UTC

Message no. 16 >>>>>>[All of the visual information conveyed through the deck
by the
Matrix is done by simsense. This "overrides most of the user's own sensory inf
ormation"(SRII p.162). If the decker is blind then the simsense chip does not h
ave to overide sensory information, it only gives it. In other words the decker
does not see with his eyes, he sees with his mind and the only problems a blin
d decker would have without sight is outside of the Matrix.
A blind decker might have the psychological response of wanting to stay
in the Matrix because that's the only place that he can see.]<<<<<<
--NOMAD<13:14:32�03-21-55>

From:	Joshua James Harrison <harrij4@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 15:18:03 -0500

Message no. 17 Hmm... I just leaped into this discussion, and I don't really know what's being
debated, but I'll take a stab in the dark... are we discussing whether a blind
person could be a decker? If they would be able to "see" the Matrix?

I would say that it depends on how/why the person is blind... if they are
blind due to damage to the eye, or a problem with the eye itself, then there
shouldn't be any reason that they wouldn't be able to see the Matrix, because
the part of the brain that processes visual information is still good - it
just isn't receiving any information from the eye... the neural link can be
connected to the visual center of the brain, generating the images there
(which I think is how the whole set-up works anyhow).

OTOH... if the problem lies in the brain, and that it can't process the visual
information (I've never heard of a situation like that, but it doesn't mean
that it can't happen), then I really don't know what could be done... beats
me...

Of course, all of this may have already been said... so forgive me if I've
repeated any ideas. As I said, I don't really know what's being discussed
here... oh well... until next time...

--
Josh Harrison | A Elbereth Gilthoniel | "The Hedgehog"
aka A.M. Hawke | o menel palan-diriel, | \ \ | / /
Internet: | le nallon si di'nguruthos! | \ \ | / /
harrij4@***.edu | A tiro nin, Fanuilos! | --- O O ---
------------------------------------------------------------| / C \
'Now come, you filth!' he cried. 'You've hurt my master, | / m\_/m \
you brute, and you'll pay for it. We're going on; but we'll |---------------
settle with you first. Come on, and taste it again!' - Sam, "The Two Towers"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE/T/O d++(--) -p+ c+(++) l u e+ m+(-) s+/ !n h f+(*) !g w+@ t+@ r(+) y?

From:	Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 19:36:54 CST

Message no. 18 >Hmm... I just leaped into this discussion, and I don't really know what's being
>debated, but I'll take a stab in the dark... are we discussing whether a blind
>person could be a decker? If they would be able to "see" the Matrix?

Yep. It's really the latter, but the two come down to basically the same
question.

>I would say that it depends on how/why the person is blind... if they are
>blind due to damage to the eye, or a problem with the eye itself, then there
>shouldn't be any reason that they wouldn't be able to see the Matrix, because
>the part of the brain that processes visual information is still good - it
>just isn't receiving any information from the eye... the neural link can be
>connected to the visual center of the brain, generating the images there
>(which I think is how the whole set-up works anyhow).

>OTOH... if the problem lies in the brain, and that it can't process the visual
>information (I've never heard of a situation like that, but it doesn't mean
>that it can't happen), then I really don't know what could be done... beats
>me...

If the problem is with the eye or optic nerve, the blindness could be cured
with cybernetic or biological replacements, which I feel safe assuming that
any decker could afford. (Compare the cost of even a low-end deck to the
cost of eye replacements if you doubt this assumption.) From this, I drew
the conclusion that the only (well, 95-99+%) blind deckers would be those
whose brains were incapable of processing visual data. Aside from that, your
last two paragraphs are substantially the same as the comments I made which
got the blind deckers discussion rolling.

esper@***.umn.edu

From:	Richard Osterhout <rcoster@******.INFONET.NET>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 1994 07:55:23 -0600

Message no. 19 > In The Real World (TM), this applies as there's so much there that the
> average human can't function effectively without relying on sight. The
> matrix, however, is far simpler and most of the visual detail is just
> flourishes added for psychological effect. At worst, an audio interface
> would take the -2 MPCP penalty for being a reality filter.
>
> esper@***.umn.edu

and so there is the answer....just make a blind decker use a reality filter
with the -2 MPCP modifier....thanx for the answer Esper...

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| rcoster@******.infonet.net | Information is power - |
| Richard C. Osterhout | But the knowledge of how |
| Tavares, Florida | to use it is the key! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

From:	"Vahamaa, Paul C, Jr" <PVAHAMAA@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Re: Blind Deckers?
Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 1994 09:09:57 EST

Message no. 20 It doesn't matter if the decker can see or not, the Matrix is displayed
directly into his brain, not through his eyes. The deck produces the
images, and the brain 'sees' the images, therefore a blind decker can
indeed jack into the Matrix. Just that problem with finding the right
keys :-)

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer