Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 18:02:35 +0200
A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
(cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.

"Well, that's obivious, it's because..." I stopped, closed my mouth,
thought, opened it, closed it... must have looked like some goldfish.
I don't know.
A third eye would just add to your field of vision, not even add a
new sense (like some other cyberimplants do), would be quite cheap
(compared to other sensory cyberorgans), and be a real nice (or bad,
depends on side) surprise for all "sneakers".

Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
Anyone got comments?

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 2
From: Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 09:19:40 PDT
> A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
> (cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
> 360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.
>
> "Well, that's obivious, it's because..."

"... the visual cortex is only set up to handle 2 eyes."

> I stopped, closed my mouth,
> thought, opened it, closed it... must have looked like some goldfish.
> I don't know.
> A third eye would just add to your field of vision, not even add a
> new sense (like some other cyberimplants do), would be quite cheap
> (compared to other sensory cyberorgans), and be a real nice (or bad,
> depends on side) surprise for all "sneakers".
>

Maybe if you had some SPU implanted to handle the proccessing.

> Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
> be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
> Anyone got comments?
>

Yep. The essence cost OF THE EYE wouldn't be higher, IMO, because the
VC is right back there in the back of your skull. The SPU required to
use it, however, ...

> Sascha
>
Message no. 3
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
At 18:02 6/22/96 +0200, you wrote:
>A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
>(cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
>360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.
>
>"Well, that's obivious, it's because..." I stopped, closed my mouth,
>thought, opened it, closed it... must have looked like some goldfish.
>I don't know.
>A third eye would just add to your field of vision, not even add a
>new sense (like some other cyberimplants do), would be quite cheap
>(compared to other sensory cyberorgans), and be a real nice (or bad,
>depends on side) surprise for all "sneakers".
>
>Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
>be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
>Anyone got comments?
>
> Sascha

Personally I would think the character would get a BIG headache. He would be
able to see in front and behind at the same time. Your minds do not
naturally have the ability to process that information. The result could be
superimposed images or evenno image at all due to the brain's confusion.
IMHO I woldn't allow it. My reason: The cybertechs haven't been able to
rectify the sensory overload tot the brain to make the third eye useable.
Having a third eye or extra set of arms is not mechanically possible with
present tech. Besides where would you put it? In the skull? There's brain
there. Under the skull? And lodge it in what? Your spinal cord? Character:
"I look up." GM: "You see the floor." Not to mention social
interaction
modifiers. Think the react badly to cyber now.

Enough Ideas on why its no good?


Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: Todd Leask <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:39:28 -0600 (MDT)
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Hairy Smurf wrote:

>
> Personally I would think the character would get a BIG headache. He would be
> able to see in front and behind at the same time. Your minds do not
> naturally have the ability to process that information. The result could be
> superimposed images or evenno image at all due to the brain's confusion.

Yep, HUGE headache. If it were possible, I'd say at least several months
in rehab just getting used to having the thing, let alone using it. It
could be possible IF there were a SPU that could switch visual input from
the normal set of eyes, to the alternative set, though such a device would
run at high essence and nuyen.


> IMHO I woldn't allow it. My reason: The cybertechs haven't been able to
> rectify the sensory overload tot the brain to make the third eye useable.
> Having a third eye or extra set of arms is not mechanically possible with
> present tech. Besides where would you put it? In the skull? There's brain
> there. Under the skull? And lodge it in what? Your spinal cord? Character:

Actually, they could remodel the skull to fit the eye in (making the skull
have an extra socket for the eye, though as you mentioned below, It would
incure a hell of a social modifier. (You think trolls got it bad...)

One other point. If only one eye was installed, and my idea above was used
(switching between input) then the eye in the back of the head would lack
any depth perception. Think about it.

"you see an assailant approaching you fom behind"

"how far away"

"you dunno, maybe 10 feet, maybe 200"

(I know, a bit exaggerated, but you get the point)


Todd

"You take something of yourself and give it free of charge. You take a
part of yourself and do so because you believe you are connected to
everything else. You become aware of yourself as a part of everything. You
suffer momentarily so that someone else will not have to."

Unknown, Winnebago, Before 1945
Message no. 5
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:08:16 +0200
On 22.06.96, Benjamin wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
[3rd cybereye]
> "... the visual cortex is only set up to handle 2 eyes."
"...and not set up to handle thermographic vision... amy not receive
radio messages..." no, that doesn't work. The brain is able to get used
to new/changed sensory input. Check this out, if you are wearing glasses
and remove them, how fast your brain compensates. Well, not to allow
you to see details, but to follow more outlines then details.

[snip]
> Maybe if you had some SPU implanted to handle the proccessing.
Hm... but with this reasoning, you'd need a SPU to handle a cybernetic
radio receiver, maybe even low light vision, too.

> > Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
> > be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
> > Anyone got comments?
> Yep. The essence cost OF THE EYE wouldn't be higher, IMO, because the
> VC is right back there in the back of your skull. The SPU required to
> use it, however, ...
What's a VC? I'd think a new "bedding" for the eye (eyehole? In German it's
"Augenhoehle"), plus a longer nerve connection would have a higher Essence
cost, but I still fail to see the need for a SPU.

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 6
From: "Robert J. Waters" <rjwate01@*****.louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:00:13 -0500 (EDT)
> "...and not set up to handle thermographic vision... amy not receive
> radio messages..." no, that doesn't work. The brain is able to get used
> to new/changed sensory input. Check this out, if you are wearing glasses
> and remove them, how fast your brain compensates. Well, not to allow
> you to see details, but to follow more outlines then details.

changed yes...new no...when you get a new pescription how long does it take
you to adapt to the clearer vision and sharper images?

> Hm... but with this reasoning, you'd need a SPU to handle a cybernetic
> radio receiver, maybe even low light vision, too.

low-light and thermographic isnt true low-light and thermographic. It is
actually colors representing different light levels and heat levels. A
processor in the cybereyes convert the input into color patterns that the
cybereye owner can interprete. Now time is needed for the newly cybered
individual to understand the color patterns. As far as the radio receiver
thing I would assume that it communicates with the hearing portions of the
brain.

I posted a big long thing about the probs about a third eye...did anyone get
it? BTW I finally got my old account working which is good since the other
one is fragged now :(.

Luc AKA BobW
Message no. 7
From: "Spike" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 22:44:41 +0100 (BST)
|
|On 22.06.96, Benjamin wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
|[3rd cybereye]
|> "... the visual cortex is only set up to handle 2 eyes."
|"...and not set up to handle thermographic vision... amy not receive
|radio messages..." no, that doesn't work. The brain is able to get used
|to new/changed sensory input. Check this out, if you are wearing glasses
|and remove them, how fast your brain compensates. Well, not to allow
|you to see details, but to follow more outlines then details.

Errrrrr.
It doesn't compensate. All I get is a blur.

|[snip]
|> Maybe if you had some SPU implanted to handle the proccessing.
|Hm... but with this reasoning, you'd need a SPU to handle a cybernetic
|radio receiver, maybe even low light vision, too.

That all depends. All the low-light is doing is amplifying the light and
sending the result as if it was normal input. All thermographic is doind is
sensing the heat and translating it into a form that the brain can
comprehend.
A third eye is a totally different kettle of fish.
(Although, I suppose it could be rigged to do a picture in picture type
effect or something.)
The radio receiver is simply doing what a notmal radio does. Receiving radio
and translating to a different, understandable form.

|> > Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
|> > be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
|> > Anyone got comments?
|> Yep. The essence cost OF THE EYE wouldn't be higher, IMO, because the
|> VC is right back there in the back of your skull. The SPU required to
|> use it, however, ...
|What's a VC? I'd think a new "bedding" for the eye (eyehole? In German it's
|"Augenhoehle"), plus a longer nerve connection would have a higher Essence
|cost, but I still fail to see the need for a SPU.

Visual Cortex?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
|Principal subjects in:-| "THAT WOULD BE AN ECCLESIASTICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!!|
|Comp Sci & something | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! >*SULK*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:11:25 PDT
> On 22.06.96, Benjamin wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
> [3rd cybereye]
> > "... the visual cortex is only set up to handle 2 eyes."
> "...and not set up to handle thermographic vision... amy not receive
> radio messages..." no, that doesn't work. The brain is able to get used
> to new/changed sensory input. Check this out, if you are wearing glasses
> and remove them, how fast your brain compensates. Well, not to allow
> you to see details, but to follow more outlines then details.
>

YTes, but it's still the same AMOUNT. And besides,
FoF, page 80, Natural Low-Light and Thermal Vision:"Natural
low..."etc"...is
magical in nature." and there are some problems withg cyber low-light and
thero, too.

> [snip]
> > Maybe if you had some SPU implanted to handle the proccessing.
> Hm... but with this reasoning, you'd need a SPU to handle a cybernetic
> radio receiver, maybe even low light vision, too.
>

Yes, you would, but it would come with it. Eyes don't; they just send it with
a just enough proccessing to make it understtandable to the brain.

> > > Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
> > > be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
> > > Anyone got comments?
> > Yep. The essence cost OF THE EYE wouldn't be higher, IMO, because the
> > VC is right back there in the back of your skull. The SPU required to
> > use it, however, ...
> What's a VC? I'd think a new "bedding" for the eye (eyehole? In German it's
> "Augenhoehle"), plus a longer nerve connection would have a higher Essence
> cost, but I still fail to see the need for a SPU.
>

Visual Cortex. Actually, the Visual COrtex (abbrivated VC) is at the BACK of
the head. The higher essence cost would be the new equpment (the SPU) required
to get the brain to take the input from the extra eye.

> Sascha
>
> --

DISCLAIMER:I'm making this up as I go along.
Message no. 9
From: Mike Alex <mra0118@******.sdsmt.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 18:50:20 -0600 (MDT)
Seems to me I remember reading an article stating something to the
effect that if a child is born blind, any attempts to restore their sight
would have o be made before puberty, otherwise the visual cortex would be
unable to adapt and the effect would slowly drive them insane and
eventually return them to full blindness. I see having a third eye in the
back of the head as causing the same problem. (Now if the third eye was
implanted at birth...)

> A third eye is a totally different kettle offish.
> (Although, I suppose it could be rigged to do a picture in picture type
> effect or something.)

Not too hard. Install an image link in your front-facing eyes and
slave the third eye (possibly through an encephalon or SPU) to it.


Mike Alex, mra0118@******.sdsmt.edu
"Resistance is futile, (if < 1 ohm)."
Message no. 10
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
At 06:02 PM 6/22/96 +0200, Sachsa wrote:

>A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
>(cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
>360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.
>
>"Well, that's obvious, it's because..." I stopped, closed my mouth,
>thought, opened it, closed it... must have looked like some goldfish.
>I don't know.

Well, for one thing, God didn't design us to have a third eye in the back
of out heads! *grin*

I can think of a couple reasons.

(1) An eye on the back of the head would be VERY vulnerable to damage.
What, you're going to scoop out some of your brain for an eye socket?

(2) I think the extra sensory input would be too confusing to work properly.


--
"I remember my first sexual encounter because I kept the recipe."
- Jeff Dahmer
Message no. 11
From: sl@****.hh.provi.de (Steffen Lassahn)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 10:22:08 GMT
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 18:02:35 +0200, you wrote:

>A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
>(cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
>360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.

I think technically it should be possible but the brain would be in
deep trouble interpreting the pictures coming from the two 'natural'
eyes and the third eye.
One of my players once designed a helmet equipped with 360 degrees
sensors and a smal comuter. He connected this helmet to the computer
in his head with the following possibilities:
He could deactivate his normal cybereyes and could utilize the sensors
of the helmet. The computer in the helmet took the input from its
sensors to simulate two eyes. This signal was send to the brain
instead of the signal from the normal eyes. This way he could look in
all directions without moving his head.
Another guy (street sam) put a camera into his right index finger to
be able to put only his hand with the gun in it around a corner and
still be able to shoot directly at the enemy. I told him that using
this device together with his cybereyes gives him a +4 on all
targetnumbers involving visual perception and a (number of rounds the
camera is active)M stun damage.

Steffen


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steffen Lassahn sl@*****.de (work) |
| Tel. +49 (0)40 250 72 98 sl@****.hh.provi.de (home) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| You are young only once. But if you do it right once is enough! |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 12
From: CHARLIE@*******.com
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 09:12:32 -0400
At 04:11 PM 6/22/96 PDT, you wrote:
>> On 22.06.96, Benjamin wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
>> [3rd cybereye]
>> > "... the visual cortex is only set up to handle 2 eyes."
>> "...and not set up to handle thermographic vision... amy not receive
>> radio messages..." no, that doesn't work. The brain is able to get used
>> to new/changed sensory input. Check this out, if you are wearing glasses
>> and remove them, how fast your brain compensates. Well, not to allow
>> you to see details, but to follow more outlines then details.
>>
>
>YTes, but it's still the same AMOUNT. And besides,
>FoF, page 80, Natural Low-Light and Thermal Vision:"Natural
low..."etc"...is
>magical in nature." and there are some problems withg cyber low-light and
>thero, too.
>
>> [snip]
>> > Maybe if you had some SPU implanted to handle the proccessing.
>> Hm... but with this reasoning, you'd need a SPU to handle a cybernetic
>> radio receiver, maybe even low light vision, too.
>>
>
>Yes, you would, but it would come with it. Eyes don't; they just send it with
>a just enough proccessing to make it understtandable to the brain.
>
>> > > Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
>> > > be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
>> > > Anyone got comments?
>> > Yep. The essence cost OF THE EYE wouldn't be higher, IMO, because the
>> > VC is right back there in the back of your skull. The SPU required to
>> > use it, however, ...
>> What's a VC? I'd think a new "bedding" for the eye (eyehole? In German
it's
>> "Augenhoehle"), plus a longer nerve connection would have a higher
Essence
>> cost, but I still fail to see the need for a SPU.
>>
>
>Visual Cortex. Actually, the Visual COrtex (abbrivated VC) is at the BACK of
>the head. The higher essence cost would be the new equpment (the SPU) required
>to get the brain to take the input from the extra eye.
Um, sorry, bzzzt..WRONG ANSWER! the VC is located in the front of the head,
directly connected to both eyes' optical nerves. I should know, I've had my
eyes operated on more than a few times, in the retinas, where it all goes
straight through the nerve to the VC....that is, unless my brain is totally
f*cked up.
Message no. 13
From: Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:46:36 PDT
> Um, sorry, bzzzt..WRONG ANSWER! the VC is located in the front of the head,
> directly connected to both eyes' optical nerves. I should know, I've had my
> eyes operated on more than a few times, in the retinas, where it all goes
> straight through the nerve to the VC....that is, unless my brain is totally
> f*cked up.
>

Ummm... Everyone i aswked, including my science teachers and the
encyclopedia, says it's at the back of the head.

I don't see how having your eyes operated on is relavent... After all,
youy feel things w/the same lag from all over your body...
Message no. 14
From: CHARLIE@*******.com
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:41:34 -0400
At 08:46 AM 6/23/96 PDT, you wrote:
>
>> Um, sorry, bzzzt..WRONG ANSWER! the VC is located in the front of the head,
>> directly connected to both eyes' optical nerves. I should know, I've had my
>> eyes operated on more than a few times, in the retinas, where it all goes
>> straight through the nerve to the VC....that is, unless my brain is totally
>> f*cked up.
>>
>
>Ummm... Everyone i aswked, including my science teachers and the
>encyclopedia, says it's at the back of the head.
>
>I don't see how having your eyes operated on is relavent... After all,
>youy feel things w/the same lag from all over your body...
Well, that depends....me being a player....lemme describe the scenario...my
character was born prematurely[3 and a 1/2 months early], and well, his
retinas had to be put in cyrogrenic therapy...MEANWHILE......[RL now]The
signals from your eyes cannot keep the power to go
ALL_THE_WAY_ACROSS_YOUR_HEAD....with the main topic for this msg., it really
depends on stuff like race, medical history, etc...also, it's stupid to put
the third eye in......your brain would need a lobotomy to relieve the
electrical pressure.


John Penta
Message no. 15
From: Droopy <droopy@**.net>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 20:55:34 -0400
>At 06:02 PM 6/22/96 +0200, Sachsa wrote:
>
>>A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
>>(cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
>>360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.
>>
>>"Well, that's obvious, it's because..." I stopped, closed my mouth,
>>thought, opened it, closed it... must have looked like some goldfish.
>>I don't know.
>
Why not just get a helmet that uses a compressed 360 degree view on the
visor ala Battletech? It's more essense friendly, easier to use, you don't
look like a total freak (well, no more than normal anyway,) and you can take
it off. :)


--Droopy
Message no. 16
From: Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:22:40 PDT
> >youy feel things w/the same lag from all over your body...
> Well, that depends....me being a player....lemme describe the scenario...my
> character was born prematurely[3 and a 1/2 months early], and well, his
> retinas had to be put in cyrogrenic therapy...MEANWHILE......[RL now]The
> signals from your eyes cannot keep the power to go
> ALL_THE_WAY_ACROSS_YOUR_HEAD....with the main topic for this msg., it really
> depends on stuff like race, medical history, etc...also, it's stupid to put
> the third eye in......your brain would need a lobotomy to relieve the
> electrical pressure.
>
>

They do it all the time.
By the same reasoning, the siganls from your toes shouldn't make it
ALL_THE_WAY_UP_YOUR_BODY, either.

> John Penta
>
Message no. 17
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:09:17 -0400 (EDT)
At 21:22 6/23/96 PDT, you wrote:
>> >youy feel things w/the same lag from all over your body...
>> Well, that depends....me being a player....lemme describe the scenario...my
>> character was born prematurely[3 and a 1/2 months early], and well, his
>> retinas had to be put in cyrogrenic therapy...MEANWHILE......[RL now]The
>> signals from your eyes cannot keep the power to go
>> ALL_THE_WAY_ACROSS_YOUR_HEAD....with the main topic for this msg., it really
>> depends on stuff like race, medical history, etc...also, it's stupid to put
>> the third eye in......your brain would need a lobotomy to relieve the
>> electrical pressure.
>>
>>
>
>They do it all the time.
>By the same reasoning, the siganls from your toes shouldn't make it
>ALL_THE_WAY_UP_YOUR_BODY, either.
>
>> John Penta
>>

They don't always anyway. You step on something that is sharp and the
electrical impulse only makes it to your spinal cord. The cord houses
automatic responses and tell your foot to withdraw. Bottom line the brain
isn't designed to handle the third eye. Yes I know it isn't cesigned to
handle the other modifications that exist in cyber, but the brain can be
fooled to a point. I don't think it could handle this. Can any of you think
of a mammal, or any other higher lifeform, that has eyes in the back of it's
head? Nature has no presidence for it.

Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 18
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes -Reply
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:35:22 -0500
>>Visual Cortex. Actually, the Visual COrtex (abbrivated VC) is at the BACK of
>>the head. The higher essence cost would be the new equpment (the SPU)
required
>>to get the brain to take the input from the extra eye.

>Um, sorry, bzzzt..WRONG ANSWER! the VC is located in the front of the head,
>directly connected to both eyes' optical nerves. I should know, I've had my eyes
>operated on more than a few times, in the retinas, where it all goes straight
t>hrough the nerve to the VC....that is, unless my brain is totally f*cked up.

I'd like to examine your brain :) The optic nerve projects from the retinas to the
back of the head. The visual area is on the surface of the brain, right at the
back. ( This is why you see stars when hit in the back of the head rather than the
front. ) The retinas are in your eyeballs of course, and that was what they
operated on (unless you had some REALLY strange stuff done to you).

We know more about visual processing in the brain than many other functions
(like memory) in part because of the really great place it's located, nothing in the
way but skull, just whip out the saw and put in the electrodes... (Luckily I just kept
to computer simulations...)

Double-Domed Mike, who got a degree in Brain+Cognitive Science from MIT
many years ago.
Message no. 19
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:45:55 -0500
John Penta said:
>The signals from your eyes cannot keep the power to go
>ALL_THE_WAY_ACROSS_YOUR_HEAD....

Where did you get this idea???? While I too dislike the third eye idea, this is a
completely bogus reason. The signals ALREADY go from one side of the head to
another (Visual Cortex is in the back of the head), and more importantly, neural
signals don't really degrade with distance, it just gets harder to deal with timing
lags. You MIGHT have a problem with signal degradation if you tried to implant
an eye somewhere below the waist (not even then, IMO), but anywhere on the
head should completely fine. Getting the brain to deal with it, now THATS a
problem...

Double-Domed Mike (an Ex Brain&Cognitive Science major)
Message no. 20
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
>You MIGHT have a problem with signal degradation if you tried to implant
>an eye somewhere below the waist
>Double-Domed Mike
>

Ummm, Exactly where below the waist were you thinking about Mike?

Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 21
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes -Reply
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:49:18 -0500
>>You MIGHT have a problem with signal degradation if you tried to implant
>>an eye somewhere below the waist >Double-Domed Mike >

>Ummm, Exactly where below the waist were you thinking about Mike?

>Sasquatch

We street docs try not to get judgemental about the wishes of our clients ;)

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 22
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:10:08 +0200
On 24.06.96, Hairy Smurf wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
[snipped stuff]
> [Brain not designed to handle 3rd eye] Yes I know it isn't cesigned to
> handle the other modifications that exist in cyber, but the brain can be
> fooled to a point. I don't think it could handle this.
Hm... I fear we will get down to this regulary: Feelings.

> Can any of you think
> of a mammal, or any other higher lifeform, that has eyes in the back of it's
> head? Nature has no presidence for it.
Nope... but I can think of many mammal that have their eyes placed at
different places, from frontal to insert sideaway (like horses) or
bulging sideaways (like rats). At least rats can see to the sides and
have a 3d image of what is in front of them.

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 23
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:09:57 +0200
On 24.06.96, Droopy wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
> >At 06:02 PM 6/22/96 +0200, Sachsa wrote:
[orginal question for 3rd cybereye]
I can count to two >s, so I know it were not you, who posted this, but I
want to insist I am named Sascha... :-)

> Why not just get a helmet that uses a compressed 360 degree view on the
> visor ala Battletech? It's more essense friendly, easier to use, you don't
> look like a total freak (well, no more than normal anyway,) and you can take
> it off. :)
Well, most simple: I know neither Battletech nor the helmet you mention,
another answer is it's much more complicated to steal cyberware from a
character.

I am curious what this helmet is like... can you describe it to me,
possible with SR rules and stats?

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 24
From: CHARLIE@*******.com
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:18:18 -0400
At 09:22 PM 6/23/96 PDT, you wrote:
>> >youy feel things w/the same lag from all over your body...
>> Well, that depends....me being a player....lemme describe the scenario...my
>> character was born prematurely[3 and a 1/2 months early], and well, his
>> retinas had to be put in cyrogrenic therapy...MEANWHILE......[RL now]The
>> signals from your eyes cannot keep the power to go
>> ALL_THE_WAY_ACROSS_YOUR_HEAD....with the main topic for this msg., it really
>> depends on stuff like race, medical history, etc...also, it's stupid to put
>> the third eye in......your brain would need a lobotomy to relieve the
>> electrical pressure.
>>
>>
>
>They do it all the time.
>By the same reasoning, the siganls from your toes shouldn't make it
>ALL_THE_WAY_UP_YOUR_BODY, either.
>
>> John Penta
>>
Point.....BUT, the situation with the eyes is because, well, let's assume a
person is somewhat brain-damaged....The signals from the eyes may NOT get
where they are supposed to go....same thing all over the body....BTW, um,
the electrons ARE strengthened a bit at critical places like the hip, the
heart, etc., altho with the eyes....no recharge....besides, you'd have
BLINDNESS with a third eye......Your Visual Cortex WOULD_OVERLOAD....sort of
a natural cortex bomb, 'cept you would still live...just be in EXTREME pain.
Message no. 25
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
At 00:10 6/25/96 +0200, you wrote:
>On 24.06.96, Hairy Smurf wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
>[snipped stuff]
>> [Brain not designed to handle 3rd eye] Yes I know it isn't cesigned to
>> handle the other modifications that exist in cyber, but the brain can be
>> fooled to a point. I don't think it could handle this.
>Hm... I fear we will get down to this regulary: Feelings.
>
>> Can any of you think
>> of a mammal, or any other higher lifeform, that has eyes in the back of it's
>> head? Nature has no presidence for it.
>Nope... but I can think of many mammal that have their eyes placed at
>different places, from frontal to insert sideaway (like horses) or
>bulging sideaways (like rats). At least rats can see to the sides and
>have a 3d image of what is in front of them.
>
> Sascha

I'd rather have my eyes in front with binocualr vision the on the sides with
300+ degree vision field. If I had the latter I'd be a prey species, I
prefer being the preyer not the preyie.

Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 26
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:33:20 -0600 (MDT)
Sascha Pabst wrote:
|
|On 24.06.96, Hairy Smurf wrote about "Re: Cybereyes":
|[snipped stuff]
|> [Brain not designed to handle 3rd eye] Yes I know it isn't cesigned to
|> handle the other modifications that exist in cyber, but the brain can be
|> fooled to a point. I don't think it could handle this.
|Hm... I fear we will get down to this regulary: Feelings.
|
|> Can any of you think
|> of a mammal, or any other higher lifeform, that has eyes in the back of it's
|> head? Nature has no presidence for it.
|Nope... but I can think of many mammal that have their eyes placed at
|different places, from frontal to insert sideaway (like horses) or
|bulging sideaways (like rats). At least rats can see to the sides and
|have a 3d image of what is in front of them.

There's a lizard that has independant eyes (each eye can look in a
different direction, even behind it's head). And the same lizard can focus
both of it's eyes on it's prey to accurately use it's tongue to catch food
(ie., it's a predator). Maybe scientists in SR could model a computer chip
to mimic the lizard's visual cortex and hook it up to a human brain to
allow multiple independant visual images to be interpreted. This could
allow the use of a third eye (or visual source) and independant eye
movement.

Other precedences for this (I believe) are various species of
crustacean which have independant eye stalks (at least it looks like
they do).

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 27
From: "Robert J. Waters" <rjwate01@*****.louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:00:28 -0500 (EDT)
> Point.....BUT, the situation with the eyes is because, well, let's assume a
> person is somewhat brain-damaged....The signals from the eyes may NOT get
> where they are supposed to go....same thing all over the body....BTW, um,
> the electrons ARE strengthened a bit at critical places like the hip, the
> heart, etc., altho with the eyes....no recharge....besides, you'd have
> BLINDNESS with a third eye......Your Visual Cortex WOULD_OVERLOAD....sort of
> a natural cortex bomb, 'cept you would still live...just be in EXTREME pain.

Well when I was in a psychology class the way the book explained the
transmission of nerve impulses is this:
A passing of chemicals between two nerve cells causes electro-chemical
reaction that causes the release of chemicals on the other end of the nerve
cell. The human nervous system is a series of signal boosters so the nervous
system does not suffer from "signal degridation" but instead has the problem
of "lag" over long long distances. The impluse doesn't weaken in strength but
instead might not travel fast enough for response quick enough to be safe.
Dinosaurs had a smaller brain in their but to respond to sensory input in
their lower regions that would take a long time to reach their brain (in head)
and then send response back to muscles around sensory input (say for instance
the tail gets bitten). Also to defeat the lag prob just install fiber optic
line from cybereye in far off body location to near brain and have a signal
convertor to convert the images from optical to electro so that the brain can
understand it.

--
Luc AKA BobW

EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME!
BUT THE CORPSE STILL HAS THE FLOOR!
--Kevin Spacey as Lloyd in The Ref (1994)
Message no. 28
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
At 21:00 6/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
[SNIP (true statements on nerve endings)]
>Dinosaurs had a smaller brain in their but to respond to sensory input in
>their lower regions that would take a long time to reach their brain (in head)
>and then send response back to muscles around sensory input (say for instance
>the tail gets bitten).
>--
>Luc AKA BobW
>

As I've already stated the impulses from something like that never reach the
brain. they make it to the spinal cord and an instant response is sent back
to the body part in question and it reacts. If you touch a hot pot your hand
would get burnt worse if you had to wait for the signal to reach your brain.
It only goes to the cord.

Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 29
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
At 18:33 6/24/96 -0600, you wrote:
[SNIP]
>There's a lizard that has independant eyes (each eye can look in a
>different direction, even behind it's head). And the same lizard can focus
>both of it's eyes on it's prey to accurately use it's tongue to catch food
>(ie., it's a predator). Maybe scientists in SR could model a computer chip
>to mimic the lizard's visual cortex and hook it up to a human brain to
>allow multiple independant visual images to be interpreted. This could
>allow the use of a third eye (or visual source) and independant eye
>movement.
>
>Other precedences for this (I believe) are various species of
>crustacean which have independant eye stalks (at least it looks like
>they do).
>
>-David

That is still only two eyes. If the techs (scientists deal in science, tech
deal in reality :) ) could mimic the lizard's or lobster's VC fine. You
would have big protruding eyes with 360 degree vision. That would be an even
bigger social modifier and you'd big the butt of quite a few jokes. :)


Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 30
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:07:20 -0600 (MDT)
I was thinking (yes I actually do that from time to time) and thought of an
precedence for more than two eyes in nature. Arachnids.

Problem is I don't know enough about arachnids to know how their visual
system could be applied to cyberware for humans. I think spiders eyes are
in specialized pairs (one for identification, another for movement, and I
don't know what the other sets are for).

The one idea I did come up with would be to have a SpiderHelm. A combat
helmet with 6 or 8 pairs of sensors on the front, each pair specialized for
percieving a specific wavelength (normal spectrum, IR, Ultra, Radio,
and... motion?). Run them all through a processor and then into the user's
datajack. Thoughts?

Other tricks with helmets include: spacing a pair of cybereyes on the
helmet at a wider distance for better depth perception. Vision from the
cyberyes overides the user's normal vision. Something like this might
require a specialized jack wired to the user's visual cortex to bypass his
normal vision when used.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 31
From: "Robert J. Waters" <rjwate01@*****.louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:36:57 -0500 (EDT)
> Other tricks with helmets include: spacing a pair of cybereyes on the
> helmet at a wider distance for better depth perception. Vision from the
> cyberyes overides the user's normal vision. Something like this might
> require a specialized jack wired to the user's visual cortex to bypass his
> normal vision when used.

Or just use the circuits from a cyberdeck that over ride optics when jacked
into the matrix.

--
Luc AKA BobW

EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME!
BUT THE CORPSE STILL HAS THE FLOOR!
--Kevin Spacey as Lloyd in The Ref (1994)
Message no. 32
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:40:59 -0600 (MDT)
Robert J. Waters wrote:
|
|> Other tricks with helmets include: spacing a pair of cybereyes on the
|> helmet at a wider distance for better depth perception. Vision from the
|> cyberyes overides the user's normal vision. Something like this might
|> require a specialized jack wired to the user's visual cortex to bypass his
|> normal vision when used.
|
|Or just use the circuits from a cyberdeck that over ride optics when jacked
|into the matrix.

Sure, take the easy way out ;)

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 33
From: Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:20:33 PDT
> As I've already stated the impulses from something like that never reach the
> brain. they make it to the spinal cord and an instant response is sent back
> to the body part in question and it reacts. If you touch a hot pot your hand
> would get burnt worse if you had to wait for the signal to reach your brain.
> It only goes to the cord.
>

OK, here's an experiment for Hairy to do. Go put a griddle on your stove on
your highest setting. wait ten minutes. Now, put your hand on it. WOW, you
hurt! Now try telling me the signal doesn't get to your brain.

It DOES go to your brain, but the reflex thingie has already told your hand
to jerk back.

See?
Message no. 34
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 01:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
At 21:20 6/24/96 PDT, you wrote:
>> As I've already stated the impulses from something like that never reach the
>> brain. they make it to the spinal cord and an instant response is sent back
>> to the body part in question and it reacts. If you touch a hot pot your hand
>> would get burnt worse if you had to wait for the signal to reach your brain.
>> It only goes to the cord.
>>
>
>OK, here's an experiment for Hairy to do. Go put a griddle on your stove on
>your highest setting. wait ten minutes. Now, put your hand on it. WOW, you
>hurt! Now try telling me the signal doesn't get to your brain.
>
>It DOES go to your brain, but the reflex thingie has already told your hand
>to jerk back.
>
>See?
>

That's my point though. The reflex reaction comes from the spinal cord, not
the brain.

Now you see?

Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 35
From: Todd Leask <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 02:13:50 -0600 (MDT)
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Hairy Smurf wrote:

>
> As I've already stated the impulses from something like that never reach the
> brain. they make it to the spinal cord and an instant response is sent back
> to the body part in question and it reacts. If you touch a hot pot your hand
> would get burnt worse if you had to wait for the signal to reach your brain.
> It only goes to the cord.

Yes but sustained, conscious movement (ie moving a limb) requires impulses
form the limb to the brain and back. The impulses aren't that slow, and
they _*DO*_ reach the brain.

Todd


"You take something of yourself and give it free of charge. You take a
part of yourself and do so because you believe you are connected to
everything else. You become aware of yourself as a part of everything. You
suffer momentarily so that someone else will not have to."

Unknown, Winnebago, Before 1945
Message no. 36
From: Todd Leask <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 02:23:19 -0600 (MDT)
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Robert J. Waters wrote:

> Well when I was in a psychology class the way the book explained the
> transmission of nerve impulses is this:
> A passing of chemicals between two nerve cells causes electro-chemical
> reaction that causes the release of chemicals on the other end of the nerve
> cell. The human nervous system is a series of signal boosters so the nervous
> system does not suffer from "signal degridation" but instead has the
problem
> of "lag" over long long distances. The impluse doesn't weaken in strength
but
> instead might not travel fast enough for response quick enough to be safe.
> Dinosaurs had a smaller brain in their but to respond to sensory input in
> their lower regions that would take a long time to reach their brain (in head)
> and then send response back to muscles around sensory input (say for instance
> the tail gets bitten). Also to defeat the lag prob just install fiber optic
> line from cybereye in far off body location to near brain and have a signal
> convertor to convert the images from optical to electro so that the brain can
> understand it.

Actually nerve impulses travel as follows: receptors receive
neurochemicals from niehboring (sp) nerve cells. These chemicals set off
sodium/potassium voltage gated channels in the cells. These channels
create a potential across the cell membrane (nerve cell membranes are
unique in that they are _not_ porous) . This potential is propgated along
the myelin sheath by further Na+/K+ voltage gated channels (responding to
the change in potential) Thus the signal never degrades unless the meylin
sheath or cell membrane itself is defective (ie multiple sclerosis). the
problem comes with the resetting of teh channels to fire again. I took
several biophysics courses dealing with membrane potential in nerves, but
as usual, I can't offhand remeber how the reset/fire thing is resolved

Oh and the slow part of neural transmisions is the neurochemical
receptors. They must release the chemicals and resorb them. Even with only
a few micrometers to traverse, for a molecule, this can be quite
significant.

Todd

"You take something of yourself and give it free of charge. You take a
part of yourself and do so because you believe you are connected to
everything else. You become aware of yourself as a part of everything. You
suffer momentarily so that someone else will not have to."

Unknown, Winnebago, Before 1945
Message no. 37
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:30:02 +0100
David Buehrer said on 18:33/24 Jun 96...

> There's a lizard that has independant eyes (each eye can look in a
> different direction, even behind it's head). And the same lizard can focus
> both of it's eyes on it's prey to accurately use it's tongue to catch food
> (ie., it's a predator).

It's called a chameleon :)

> Other precedences for this (I believe) are various species of
> crustacean which have independant eye stalks (at least it looks like
> they do).

I believe you're right, although others have their eyes directly on/in
their heads, not on stalks.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Nothing's fair.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 38
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:30:02 +0100
David Buehrer said on 20:07/24 Jun 96...

> I was thinking (yes I actually do that from time to time) and thought of an
> precedence for more than two eyes in nature. Arachnids.

Insect eyes (no, I'm not saying a spider is an insect! :) consist of
thousands of small eyes that all individually register light and darkness,
and so build up an image. Spiders have totally different eyes, but I'm not
sure how they work.

> The one idea I did come up with would be to have a SpiderHelm. A combat
> helmet with 6 or 8 pairs of sensors on the front, each pair specialized for
> percieving a specific wavelength (normal spectrum, IR, Ultra, Radio,
> and... motion?). Run them all through a processor and then into the user's
> datajack. Thoughts?

What's the real difference between having a set of cybereyes implanted and
then getting low-light, theromgraphic, etc. built into them?

> Other tricks with helmets include: spacing a pair of cybereyes on the
> helmet at a wider distance for better depth perception. Vision from the
> cyberyes overides the user's normal vision. Something like this might
> require a specialized jack wired to the user's visual cortex to bypass his
> normal vision when used.

You don't need cybereyes for this, a periscope-type thing would be
sufficient. Although the cameras of a cybereye would be a bit more
compact, I think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Nothing's fair.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 39
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes -Reply
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:29:50 -0500
Charlie@*******.com wrote:
"BUT, the situation with the eyes is because, well, let's assume a person is
somewhat brain-damaged....The signals from the eyes may NOT get where they
are supposed to go....same thing all over the body....BTW, um, the electrons ARE
strengthened a bit at critical places like the hip, the heart, etc., altho with the
eyes....no recharge....besides, you'd have
BLINDNESS with a third eye......Your Visual Cortex WOULD_OVERLOAD....sort
of a natural cortex bomb, 'cept you would still live...just be in EXTREME pain."

I'm not sure I understand everything you are saying here, but I'll try to take this a
sentence at a time and comment.
Synapses are not telephone switches, signals go where they are supposed to, or,
in the case of a damaged brain, don't go anywhere at all. Also, I don't
understand what the point of a brain-damaged person is in this discussion.

Neural signals don't involve the passage of electrons down the neuron--they are a
chemical spike that propagates. Its like a fire burning down a fuse; there is no
need to "strengthen" the signal every so often.

AFAIK, there is nothing special about neurons at the hip and heart etc.

Yes, a third eye would be blind unless hooked up to something to process the info
that comes from it, but...

The visual cortex would overload? Like a cortex bomb? Think of the visual cortex
like a piece of computer equipment. It has a connector that passes info about
what you see to the rest of the brain (output) and two connectors, each one
hooked up to one of your retinas (input, the optic nerve). Nature did not give us a
third connector. There are only two ways to go about making this work: 1)
Piggyback additional optic data into one or both optic nerves-what is behind you
appears as a "picture-in-a-picture" or a rear-view mirror, or mental switch
selectable, whatever, but you can't easily look in two places at once. Or 2) have
the additional optic information go to a separate artificial visual cortex where it is
processed and then splice it's output into the real visual cortex's output. This
would be a much more invasive (higher essence cost) job, but would allow the
patient to "know" what was in back of him just as well as he "knew"
what was in
front of him (with the exception of no stereo vision). In any event, you can't make
a brand new channel, you have to piggyback somewhere, and if you do, either
you limit yourself to the capabilities of the channel or it doesn't work. There is no
way to "overload" the visual cortex, and if you did, what you would have is
blind
spells and wierd flashes. There is nothing you can do to a brain to make it
explode if you don't put explosives inside it.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 40
From: Brian Johnson <john0375@****.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:38:39 -0500 (CDT)
> From Sasquatch
> As I've already stated the impulses from something like that never reach the
> brain. they make it to the spinal cord and an instant response is sent back
> to the body part in question and it reacts. If you touch a hot pot your hand
> would get burnt worse if you had to wait for the signal to reach your brain.
> It only goes to the cord.

I have no Idea where you get this from. Sounds like REFLEX actions,
which are explained lightly in Shadowtech. It does NOT apply to anything
involving thought. The only reflex I'd associate with an Eye is
Flinching, which is a (not visceral, not tendon, but the other one) reflex.

If what you say is true, when I pick up a pot, that has to be a reflex
action too.

ok?
Message no. 41
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
At 09:38 6/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> From Sasquatch
>> As I've already stated the impulses from something like that never reach the
>> brain. they make it to the spinal cord and an instant response is sent back
>> to the body part in question and it reacts. If you touch a hot pot your hand
>> would get burnt worse if you had to wait for the signal to reach your brain.
>> It only goes to the cord.
>
>I have no Idea where you get this from. Sounds like REFLEX actions,
>which are explained lightly in Shadowtech. It does NOT apply to anything
>involving thought. The only reflex I'd associate with an Eye is
>Flinching, which is a (not visceral, not tendon, but the other one) reflex.
>
>If what you say is true, when I pick up a pot, that has to be a reflex
>action too.
>
>ok?
>

That was what the post I was responding to was talking about. Reflex reactions.

Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 42
From: Brian Johnson <john0375@****.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:57:30 -0500 (CDT)
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> Problem is I don't know enough about arachnids to know how their visual
> system could be applied to cyberware for humans. I think spiders eyes are
> in specialized pairs (one for identification, another for movement, and I
> don't know what the other sets are for).
six of the eyes are SIMPLE eyes (little resolution)
>
> The one idea I did come up with would be to have a SpiderHelm. A combat
That was something I did in a game of mine a while back. No real tech
problem. All you do is buy the eyes, hook to power supply, and stick
them on the helmet. Headache was alignment and feed back. All I have is
a datajack, and I had to write a Cyberdeck Program to 'fix' the input.
That way I needed no surgery.

Alternative, you can have a mercenary co. with 'specialized' tech.
motion sensors, goot EmCon, who are really a bunch of spider spirits.
Flesh forms with small defects (the simple eyes on the forehead, and
maybe spider spinners elsewhere, which are easilly concealed when you
wear clothes). Really good in the dark, and fast, too. SPOOKY?
Message no. 43
From: wilsonpj@******.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (Peter)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:21:40 -0600
Sasquatch wrote:

>At 21:20 6/24/96 PDT, you wrote:
>>> As I've already stated the impulses from something like that never reach the
>>> brain. they make it to the spinal cord and an instant response is sent back
>>> to the body part in question and it reacts. If you touch a hot pot your hand
>>> would get burnt worse if you had to wait for the signal to reach your brain.
>>> It only goes to the cord.
>>>
>>
>>OK, here's an experiment for Hairy to do. Go put a griddle on your stove on
>>your highest setting. wait ten minutes. Now, put your hand on it. WOW, you
>>hurt! Now try telling me the signal doesn't get to your brain.
>>
>>It DOES go to your brain, but the reflex thingie has already told your hand
>>to jerk back.
>>
>>See?
>>
>
>That's my point though. The reflex reaction comes from the spinal cord, not
>the brain.
>
>Now you see?
>

Please re-read your own post carefully. In your last sentence you said
that the signal stops at the spinal cord.


--- Note for everyone on the list ---

We can not know exactly what you are thinking when you write your posts,
so all we have to go on is what you write. When someone misunderstands
one of your messages, your first step should ALWAYS be to reread your own
post to see if there is someting that you forgot to note down, or need
to rephrase in order to make your point clear to the rest of the list.

Piatro
Message no. 44
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:29:48 -0600 (MDT)
Gurth wrote:
|
|David Buehrer said on 20:07/24 Jun 96...
|
|> I was thinking (yes I actually do that from time to time) and thought of an
|> precedence for more than two eyes in nature. Arachnids.
|
|Insect eyes (no, I'm not saying a spider is an insect! :) consist of
|thousands of small eyes that all individually register light and darkness,
|and so build up an image. Spiders have totally different eyes, but I'm not
|sure how they work.

Do we have any entemologists or serious hobbiests who know the answer to
this one?

|> The one idea I did come up with would be to have a SpiderHelm. A combat
|> helmet with 6 or 8 pairs of sensors on the front, each pair specialized for
|> percieving a specific wavelength (normal spectrum, IR, Ultra, Radio,
|> and... motion?). Run them all through a processor and then into the user's
|> datajack. Thoughts?
|
|What's the real difference between having a set of cybereyes implanted and
|then getting low-light, theromgraphic, etc. built into them?

Uh...it looks cool? :)

|> Other tricks with helmets include: spacing a pair of cybereyes on the
|> helmet at a wider distance for better depth perception. Vision from the
|> cyberyes overides the user's normal vision. Something like this might
|> require a specialized jack wired to the user's visual cortex to bypass his
|> normal vision when used.
|
|You don't need cybereyes for this, a periscope-type thing would be
|sufficient. Although the cameras of a cybereye would be a bit more
|compact, I think.

But with a periscope system you have to turn your entire head. With spaced
cybereyes you can just "look" in the direction you want.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 45
From: CHARLIE@*******.com
Subject: Re: Cybereyes -Reply
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:08:21 -0400
At 09:35 AM 6/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Visual Cortex. Actually, the Visual COrtex (abbrivated VC) is at the BACK of
>>>the head. The higher essence cost would be the new equpment (the SPU)
>required
>>>to get the brain to take the input from the extra eye.
>
>>Um, sorry, bzzzt..WRONG ANSWER! the VC is located in the front of the head,
>>directly connected to both eyes' optical nerves. I should know, I've had
my eyes
>>operated on more than a few times, in the retinas, where it all goes straight
>t>hrough the nerve to the VC....that is, unless my brain is totally f*cked up.
>
>I'd like to examine your brain :)You just might get the chance.
>The optic nerve projects from the retinas to the
>back of the head. The visual area is on the surface of the brain, right at the
>back. ( This is why you see stars when hit in the back of the head rather
than the
>front. ) The retinas are in your eyeballs of course, and that was what they
>operated on (unless you had some REALLY strange stuff done to you).
>Strange? Hmm....I had a cerebral hemorrage at 12 days old.....saw
accidentally shoved in my head....Do those count?
>We know more about visual processing in the brain than many other functions
>(like memory) in part because of the really great place it's located,
nothing in the
>way but skull, just whip out the saw and put in the electrodes... (Luckily
I just kept
>to computer simulations...)
I'd HATE to have YOU operate on me!:)
>Double-Domed Mike, who got a degree in Brain+Cognitive Science from MIT
>many years ago.
>EEK! BRAIN SURGEON! IM GONNA DIE!!!:P
>
Message no. 46
From: "Robert J. Waters" <rjwate01@*****.louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:18:36 -0500 (EDT)
> That's my point though. The reflex reaction comes from the spinal cord, not
> the brain.

but I fail to see what reflexes have to do with the dicussion of a third
cybereye?

--
Luc AKA BobW

EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME!
BUT THE CORPSE STILL HAS THE FLOOR!
--Kevin Spacey as Lloyd in The Ref (1994)
Message no. 47
From: Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 21:06:45 -0400 (EDT)
At 18:18 6/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> That's my point though. The reflex reaction comes from the spinal cord, not
>> the brain.
>
>but I fail to see what reflexes have to do with the dicussion of a third
>cybereye?
>
>--
>Luc AKA BobW

I doesn't, but someone raised a point concerning reflexes. You know how
these things take on a life of their own. :)

Sasquatch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| If Stormtroopers can't hit the side of a barn, and |
| Star Trek Red Shirts always die before the first commercial. |
| What happens when they fight each other? |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (No time to make one) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 48
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 18:11:34 +1100
>Problem is I don't know enough about arachnids to know how their visual
>system could be applied to cyberware for humans. I think spiders eyes are
>in specialized pairs (one for identification, another for movement, and I
>don't know what the other sets are for).

Insects and arachnids and basically most creatures unlike us have got
extremely different cerebral systems... Let's face it, how much brain do
you get in a spider?

In general, you're right, it is a question of specialisation. Insect eyes
serve as a good model for this, as they concentrate on detecting
movement, and determining distance based on the increase in the parallax
(fancy words meaning they guess how fast you're going, and how close you
are, by looking at how big you appear to be, compared to just before).
Current attempts in creating a robot eye is working along these lines.

A cyber-eye on this line would be possible... not so much another eye, as
a backward facing movement sensor (isn't that what everyone is after?).
Okay, so your exisiting brain won't handle it. Your existing brain won't
handle the output of a conventional cybereye, either. All you have to do
is add in a bit of extra processing power.

Creating fully-detailed cybereyes in non-standard locations might be
hard, mainly because you'd have to get used to interpreting the signals.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 49
From: wilsonpj@******.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (Peter)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:53:44 -0600
Robert Watkins wrote:

>
>In general, you're right, it is a question of specialisation. Insect eyes
>serve as a good model for this, as they concentrate on detecting
>movement, and determining distance based on the increase in the parallax
>(fancy words meaning they guess how fast you're going, and how close you
>are, by looking at how big you appear to be, compared to just before).
>Current attempts in creating a robot eye is working along these lines.
>


I thought parallax dealt with the vifferent views of an object you vet with recievers that
have some space between them. Each eye provides a slightly different picture, which the
brain uses to produce our 3D image of hte world around us.

Does anyone have a dicyionary handy, I rely on my word processors spell checker to an
extent that I don't think I own a ictionary amny more.

Piatro
Message no. 50
From: "Sambo" <polan881@******.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 04:37:31 +0000
Robert W. said:

> Insects and arachnids and basically most creatures unlike us have got
> extremely different cerebral systems... Let's face it, how much brain do
> you get in a spider?

Insects, and I think maybe arachnids to, do not have brains. Instead they
have several clusters of nerves (ganglia, I think they're called)
throughout their bodies that perform different functions.

I have thought a lot about this "third-eye" dilemma and IMHO it is
simply not possible. Here is my reasoning: the visual cortex is not the only
part of the brain that processes info from your eyes. There is a
part of the brain (can't remember the name) that processes and
integrates ALL sensory information. For example if someone holds up
the queen of hearts playing card in front of your eyes, you would say
"queen of hearts" or "playing card". This organ allows the visual
info you receive to be integrated into your speach center, allowing
you to SAY WHAT YOU SEE. This part of the brain would not know how
to integrate info from a third eye. Several more connections inside
the brain would have to be present. They'd have to dig so deep in
your brain the risk would definatly outweigh the benefits. That's IF
it could be done!

Just as an aside, there are people born with some of the connections
inside this "sensory integration organ" that don't connect to their
speach or hearing center. IOW, do the card thing and they can't say
the words to describe it. The info just doesn't reach the speach
center.

Just my 2cent effort at trying to remember all those Bio and Psych
classes!

***Sparhawk***
Message no. 51
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 22:11:05 +1100
>I thought parallax dealt with the vifferent views of an object you vet
>with recievers that have some space between them. Each eye provides a
>slightly different picture, which the brain uses to produce our 3D image
>of hte world around us.

That's one case of parallax... parallax can be defined like so:


x
| o
x

The parallax is essentially the _perceived_ size of the bar, as seen from
o. If you can change the position of o, you can guess size, based on the
change in parallax. This can be achieved with stereoscopic vision.

Adam Getchell will probably turn around and give us an exact definition,
but that's what I meant, even if it's not right. :)



--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 52
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:31:43 +0100
Sambo said on 4:37/27 Jun 96...

> Just as an aside, there are people born with some of the connections
> inside this "sensory integration organ" that don't connect to their
> speach or hearing center. IOW, do the card thing and they can't say
> the words to describe it. The info just doesn't reach the speach
> center.

The same thing can happen after a lobotomy; the recognition thing is only
in one brain half (let's assume it's the left), so looking at something
with your left eye will make that you see it and know what it is, but
cannot say it.

Also, there are people whose "sensory integration organ" is
short-circuited, so they can say that "these peas taste blue" and mean it,
because every time they taste peas they associate it with the color blue.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Opa is geconsumeerd en uit de maatschappij geweerd
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 53
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.com>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes -Reply
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:46:33 -0500
Gurth Wrote:
>The same thing can happen after a lobotomy; the recognition thing is only in
>one brain half (let's assume it's the left), so looking at something with your left
>eye will make that you see it and know what it is, but cannot say it."

Accurate (and really cool) except for one thing, its not after lobotomies, it's after a
split brain operation.

>Also, there are people whose "sensory integration organ" is
short-circuited, so
>they can say that "these peas taste blue" and mean it, because every time
they
>taste peas they associate it with the color blue.

Yup, this is called kinethesia (hm, that spelling looks wrong) and can actually be
simulated by certain drugs.

Sorry to nitpick, but I don't get to use my rather esoteric degree much :)

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 54
From: "Paolo (2) Falco" <Falco@****.it>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:03:43 +0000
On 24 Jun 96, David Buehrer wrote:

> The one idea I did come up with would be to have a SpiderHelm.
> A combat helmet with 6 or 8 pairs of sensors on the front, each
> pair specialized for percieving a specific wavelength (normal
> spectrum, IR, Ultra, Radio, and... motion?). Run them all
> through a processor and then into the user's datajack.
> Thoughts?

I was thinking about this too, but I had some problems
actually... Someboddy said the third eye does not have to be a
"full" eye, but just something like a smaller, less complete
organ (sorry, I can't recall who it was). I agree with this. So,
I came up with this idea: you could have a datajack-installed
"sixth sense", or something that connects through your
datacjack, goes up to an SPU, and THEN is projected as a
"window" into your cybereye. Hey, you can have gun sightsm, so
why not this? I figure the thingie would cost about 5 or 7.5
essence, SPU included. It could run thermo, vision, or movement,
but only one at once. You could even have one linked to a
Radio-Datajack (see the phiberspace catalogue), and leave the
thingie alone while going out... In fact, I think THIS is rather
plausible, but you still have no EXACT knowledge of what you are
seeing in background, only a faint knowledge that something is
there. I guess aComplex action would be appropriate to switch
BOTh of you cy-eyes to "full sixth sense", where you can see it
all in the whole of your field of vision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paolo Falco | A set is called self referencing if it
Ironbound Section | contains a self referencing subset
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See the Rollerbrawl Rules and the Anarchic Lemming Corp. site at:
*********> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/2717 <*******
Message no. 55
From: Brian Johnson <john0375@****.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:30:35 -0500 (CDT)
On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Sambo wrote:

> Robert W. said:
> "queen of hearts" or "playing card". This organ allows the
visual
> info you receive to be integrated into your speach center, allowing
> you to SAY WHAT YOU SEE. This part of the brain would not know how
> to integrate info from a third eye. Several more connections inside
> the brain would have to be present.

Then, when I look at something with my Cyber eye, I can't name the object.
This 'circuitry' is probably internal to the brain in the first place
(white matter) and goes from the VC to the other areas, so connecting it
would do the work for you. If there weren't connections, no one could
describe what they see in words.

And There has to be some 'extra' capacity, or mages couldn't see astral space
because that's the same deal here as the third eye. Not even related to
vision, but the VC gets the information and processes it well. Better
than Physical reality, in fact.

> Just as an aside, there are people born with some of the connections
> inside this "sensory integration organ" that don't connect to their
> spe{e}ch or hearing center. IOW, do the card thing and they can't say
> the words to describe it. The info just doesn't reach the spe{e}ch
> center.

cf lobotomy, this is what a Brain Fog<name?> tumor affects.
Message no. 56
From: "Sambo" <polan881@******.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 20:06:56 +0000
Brian J. said:
> Then, when I look at something with my Cyber eye, I can't name the object.
> This 'circuitry' is probably internal to the brain in the first place
> (white matter) and goes from the VC to the other areas, so connecting it
> would do the work for you. If there weren't connections, no one could
> describe what they see in words.
>
> And There has to be some 'extra' capacity, or mages couldn't see astral space
> because that's the same deal here as the third eye. Not even related to
> vision, but the VC gets the information and processes it well. Better
> than Physical reality, in fact.

Cybereyes are still only relaying the info of 2 eyes to the VC. They
merely translate electrical info to nerve impulses for 2 eyes.

As for a mage's ability to see astral space, that is the "sixth
sense". And nobody really knows why some have it and some don't.
So how can it be said that that info even goes through the VC. Maybe
it's just some sort of psychic imprint. Totally different.

Also the person with the third eye would NEVER develop reflexes that
would react correctly to the info of the 3rd eye. Reflexes are developed early
on in life. If someone moves their hand toward your face quickly you
do a couple of things: bring your hand up to block, snap your head
backwards or even take a step back. If someone did this to your
third eye, your hand would still come up in the same place, and you
would back your third eye right into that hand. Lean on into that
punch!



***Sparhawk***
Message no. 57
From: foreshadow@****.com (Mathew T Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 23:30:58 PST
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 18:02:35 +0200 "Sascha Pabst"
<Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> writes:
>A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
>(cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
>360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.
>
>"Well, that's obivious, it's because..." I stopped, closed my mouth,
>thought, opened it, closed it... must have looked like some goldfish.
>I don't know.
>A third eye would just add to your field of vision, not even add a
>new sense (like some other cyberimplants do), would be quite cheap
>(compared to other sensory cyberorgans), and be a real nice (or bad,
>depends on side) surprise for all "sneakers".
>
>Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
>be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
>Anyone got comments?

No hefty Essence drain, totally possible, but pointless. With a 3rd eye,
focusing would be impossible! Everything would be doulbe images from
front and back, and distringuishing would be imposible. +3 to all TN's
at least! That's why animals with independent eyes always focus foward
when striking.
Message no. 58
From: Luc <rjwate01@*****.louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 02:03:36 -0500 (EDT)
> No hefty Essence drain, totally possible, but pointless. With a 3rd eye,
> focusing would be impossible! Everything would be doulbe images from
> front and back, and distringuishing would be imposible. +3 to all TN's
> at least! That's why animals with independent eyes always focus foward
> when striking.

As I recall the original desire was 360 degree vision through the use of a
third eye. IHO it wouldn't be high essence cost but would require
reconditioning of perspective from frontal view with side peripheral to
frontal view with side and rear peripheral. And I would think not everyone
would be able to recondition their thaught processes, just like not everyone
can learn how to visualize 4th dimensional objects.

--
Luc AKA BobW

EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME!
BUT THE CORPSE STILL HAS THE FLOOR!
--Kevin Spacey as Lloyd in The Ref (1994)

EMail: rjwate01@*****.louisville.edu
Web : http://www.louisville.edu/~rjwate01/
Message no. 59
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@****.orion.org>
Subject: Re: Cybereyes
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:07:07 -0500 (CDT)
On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Mathew T Schaffer wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 18:02:35 +0200 "Sascha Pabst"
<Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> writes:
> >A friend of mine asked why it's not possible to have a _third_
> >(cyber-)eye implanted at the back of the head to cover an about
> >360 degree (minus the sides) field of vision.
> >
> >"Well, that's obivious, it's because..." I stopped, closed my mouth,
> >thought, opened it, closed it... must have looked like some goldfish.
> >I don't know.
> >A third eye would just add to your field of vision, not even add a
> >new sense (like some other cyberimplants do), would be quite cheap
> >(compared to other sensory cyberorgans), and be a real nice (or bad,
> >depends on side) surprise for all "sneakers".
> >
> >Since a new neural connection (heads back to visual nerves) would
> >be neccessary, the Essence cost would be higher, I think...
> >Anyone got comments?
>
> No hefty Essence drain, totally possible, but pointless. With a 3rd eye,
> focusing would be impossible! Everything would be doulbe images from
> front and back, and distringuishing would be imposible. +3 to all TN's
> at least! That's why animals with independent eyes always focus foward
> when striking.
>
This is all true, but we're talking about the miracle of cyberware here.
If you were stupid enough to implant a third eye directly in your skull,
that would screw you up as described above. However, if you implanted a
imple photoelectric sensor in the back of your head, this would work much
better and probably give you a -1 T# for surprise, as well as allowing
you to attack people people behind with no modifiers. Obviously, if you
were wearing a helmet, these advantages would be gone. A photecelctric
sensor would work much better, because it basically detercts shadows.
(Or ,you'd hope by 2050--moving shadows). This ewxplains the surprise
and knowing people are behind you and in waht positions. This is not
true "THird eye", but it's the closest we could probably get.
Essence Cost: .3 Cost: 6000 Concealabiltiy: (For people to notice the
bald spot and the shiny thing on the back of your head) 6 Availability:
6/24 hrs Legality: Legal Index: 2

PAX
mark Fender
Death
Scurge
Avaris
Message no. 60
From: hivemind hivemind@********.rr.com
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:21:47 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BFF5F8.3AED7BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here, check this out:

http://www.beyond2000.com/news/Jul_00/story_687.html

hivemind

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BFF5F8.3AED7BC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=270050306-06072000><FONT size=2>Here, check
this
out:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=270050306-06072000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=270050306-06072000><A
href="http://www.beyond2000.com/news/Jul_00/story_687.html"><FONT
face=Verdana>http://www.beyond2000.com/news/Jul_00/story_687.html</FONT></A><FONT

face=Verdana></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=270050306-06072000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=270050306-06072000><FONT
size=2>hivemind</FONT>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BFF5F8.3AED7BC0--
Message no. 61
From: Andrew Gryphon webmaster@*********.com
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:58:48 -0500
on 7/25/00 5:21 AM, hivemind at hivemind@********.rr.com can't deny saying:

> http://www.beyond2000.com/news/Jul_00/story_687.html

I've studied visual perception a bit. Amazing how complicated the eye is. It
doesn't work like a computer monitor, registering individual pixels. It has
vertical & horizontal receptors, motion sensors, lightness, color, etc.
Amazing, and very difficult to reproduce. Still, cool that they're going
there.

On a related topic, what's the power supply for cyberware? Any rules on
recharging batteries?

--
Andrew Gryphon
http://www.Wyrmworks.com
Taking Role-Playing to the next level
Message no. 62
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:16:07 GMT
>From: Andrew Gryphon <webmaster@*********.com>
>On a related topic, what's the power supply for cyberware? Any rules on
>recharging batteries?

It says something in M&M; IIRC, it gets its power from the same place the
meat equivalent does.

Phil

Let us assume we have a can opener.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 63
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:22:48 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Gryphon <webmaster@*********.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: cybereyes


>On a related topic, what's the power supply for cyberware? Any rules on
>recharging batteries?
>
Cyberware works on your body's bioelectric energy. Sad but true. I think
that's in Man and Machine. I'd prefer batteries that can go flat at bad
moments.
Message no. 64
From: Andrew Gryphon webmaster@*********.com
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:42:53 -0500
on 7/26/00 6:22 PM, Simon and Fiona at sfuller@******.com.au e-scribed:

>> On a related topic, what's the power supply for cyberware? Any rules on
>> recharging batteries?
>>
> Cyberware works on your body's bioelectric energy. Sad but true. I think
> that's in Man and Machine. I'd prefer batteries that can go flat at bad
> moments.

Hmm. There's still a tool here. Would someone with big muscle replacements
have to eat more? Work out differently? Fake muscles wouldn't benefit from
working out--they'd get more wear & tear (no pun intended).

Evil thought: effects of electrical spells & tasers on cyberware?

--
Andrew Gryphon
http://www.Wyrmworks.com
Taking Role-Playing to the next level
Message no. 65
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:59:38 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Gryphon <webmaster@*********.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: cybereyes


>on 7/26/00 6:22 PM, Simon and Fiona at sfuller@******.com.au e-scribed:
>
>>> On a related topic, what's the power supply for cyberware? Any rules on
>>> recharging batteries?
>>>
>> Cyberware works on your body's bioelectric energy. Sad but true. I think
>> that's in Man and Machine. I'd prefer batteries that can go flat at bad
>> moments.
>
>Hmm. There's still a tool here. Would someone with big muscle replacements
>have to eat more? Work out differently? Fake muscles wouldn't benefit from
>working out--they'd get more wear & tear (no pun intended).
>
I have often considered putting a ban on upping cybered stats with karma for
that reason. Makes you want to hold off getting the cyber until you are at
your peak. Of course in my games there isn't any point because everyone
GM's, and any restrictions one gives will be ignored by the others.
Message no. 66
From: Tobias Diekershoff Tobias.D@********.de
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:23:44 +0100
On 27 Jul 00 at 1:42, Andrew Gryphon wrote:

> on 7/26/00 6:22 PM, Simon and Fiona at sfuller@******.com.au e-scribed:
>
> >> On a related topic, what's the power supply for cyberware? Any rules on
> >> recharging batteries?
> >>
> > Cyberware works on your body's bioelectric energy. Sad but true. I think
> > that's in Man and Machine. I'd prefer batteries that can go flat at bad
> > moments.
>
> Hmm. There's still a tool here. Would someone with big muscle replacements
> have to eat more? Work out differently? Fake muscles wouldn't benefit from
> working out--they'd get more wear & tear (no pun intended).
>
> Evil thought: effects of electrical spells & tasers on cyberware?
>
I thought the rules for stress (MM) covert this too. The damage is
coused by electrical and so the chance for damage to the cyberware is
raised.

Tobias
Message no. 67
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:24:47 +0200
According to Andrew Gryphon, at 1:42 on 27 Jul 00, the word on the street
was...

> Hmm. There's still a tool here. Would someone with big muscle replacements
> have to eat more?

Probably, though as SR doesn't really care about food intake (this isn't
Twilight: 2000 where you have to do your best to find the stuff in the
first place) this isn't really something to worry about, IMO. There is
some bioware that changes the food requirement, but I've always seen that
more as a roleplaying tool than anything else. The only real consequence
of a character in one of my old campaigns taking a suprathyroid gland and
symbiotes, for example, was that we made jokes about how the PCs had to
store food for seven people on their yacht even though there were just
four of them.

> Work out differently? Fake muscles wouldn't benefit from working
> out--they'd get more wear & tear (no pun intended).

I don't know about that (the closest I've come to doing a work-out is not
having done one ever :)

> Evil thought: effects of electrical spells & tasers on cyberware?

M&M already handles this, in a way -- check page 127, where it says that
electrical damage automatically affects cyberware (as opposed to bioware
or attributes).

However, this doesn't mean that electrical attacks have a higher chance of
causing damage to cyberware; if you want that, look at the PW book Tech
Specs (http://plastic.dumpshock.com/shadowrun/supplements.html), as that
has some rules for the effects of shock weapons on cyberware. Although
they were written for SR2, they can be used with SR3 easily enough (though
they would require some adjustments before they fit with the M&M stress
rules).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sloan Poa!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 68
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:34:13 -0500
:>On a related topic, what's the power supply for cyberware? Any rules on
:>recharging batteries?
:>
:Cyberware works on your body's bioelectric energy. Sad but true. I think
:that's in Man and Machine. I'd prefer batteries that can go flat at bad
:moments.

The tech description of bio-electric power in M&M seems off for large
items, but could maybe work for small demands.
For a more powerful concept, look at
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000720/od/robot_dc_1.html
Blood has sugar in it. Run a vien through that enzymatic fuel cell, problem
solved. It won't go dead unless you do.

Mongoose



____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
Message no. 69
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: cybereyes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:24:28 -0700
From: "Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*****.com>
> The tech description of bio-electric power in M&M seems off for large
> items, but could maybe work for small demands.

"Seems" off? That's quite an understatement ;)

> For a more powerful concept, look at
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000720/od/robot_dc_1.html
> Blood has sugar in it. Run a vien through that enzymatic fuel cell,
problem
> solved. It won't go dead unless you do.

Why bother? There is no way in hell that's going to be very efficient or
simple to wire up. And of course it's not a fudge for the bogus statement in
MM.

Just use batteries of some kind, of small items they are going to be so
small its not a big deal, and as for cyberlimbs - well you probably have to
replace the cells every few days for them, can't see a way around that
really.

Kenneth
"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to
apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a
question."
-- Charles Babbage

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cybereyes, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!