Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Duncan McNeill-Burton <dmcneill@************.EDU>
Subject: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:27:13 -0400
I've never gotten around to buying Shadowbeat, so that's probably where the
answer lies. Just the same I'm wondering whether someone with a Full-X
sense link who happens to be astrally perceiving could record an assensing
in addition to the other five senses and his own emotions.

It seems somewhat implausible, but so does the entire concept of astral
space :)

Thanks in advance...I hope

Later-

Duncan McNeill-Burton
-Tech Priest in Training
-Violent Felon for Hire
-Pipe-wielding Sociopath for Fun
http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~dmcneill
"Your eyes shiver and you grit your teeth,
You've sold you soul now cold blood's how you get relief."
-Ice-T, The Syndicate
Message no. 2
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:42:03 -0400
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Duncan McNeill-Burton wrote:

->I've never gotten around to buying Shadowbeat, so that's probably where the
->answer lies. Just the same I'm wondering whether someone with a Full-X
->sense link who happens to be astrally perceiving could record an assensing
->in addition to the other five senses and his own emotions.

Actually, it says in Shadowbeat that astral activity doesn't
record well, even through a Full-X simrig.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 3
From: Duncan McNeill-Burton <dmcneill@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:36:53 -0400
David Foster didst sayeth:

>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Duncan McNeill-Burton wrote:
>
>->I've never gotten around to buying Shadowbeat, so that's probably where
the
>->answer lies. Just the same I'm wondering whether someone with a Full-X
>->sense link who happens to be astrally perceiving could record an
assensing
>->in addition to the other five senses and his own emotions.
>
> Actually, it says in Shadowbeat that astral activity doesn't
>record well, even through a Full-X simrig.


Cool. Thanks again. Scratch that idea. Though if someone were to get it
to work, it would revolutionize the industry. I'm not even a GM and I see a
plot here...

Later-

Duncan McNeill-Burton
-Tech Priest in Training
-Violent Felon for Hire
-Pipe-wielding Sociopath for Fun
http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~dmcneill
"Your eyes shiver and you grit your teeth,
You've sold you soul now cold blood's how you get relief."
-Ice-T, The Syndicate
Message no. 4
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:06:41 -0400
Duncan McNeill-Burton wrote:
>
> I've never gotten around to buying Shadowbeat, so that's probably where the
> answer lies. Just the same I'm wondering whether someone with a Full-X
> sense link who happens to be astrally perceiving could record an assensing
> in addition to the other five senses and his own emotions.

Nope.. It specifically says in Shadowbeat that astral perception cannot
be captured on simsense. Neither can the "feeling" of spellcasting, or
anything else inherently magical. It just isn't there on the recording.
Magicians *are* commonly employed in simsense productions, and make a
bundle off of 'em, but only for special effects; they make really boring
simsense actors themselves. >8->


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 5
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:13:58 -0500
----------
> From: Duncan McNeill-Burton <dmcneill@************.EDU>
>
> I've never gotten around to buying Shadowbeat, so that's probably where
the
> answer lies. Just the same I'm wondering whether someone with a Full-X
> sense link who happens to be astrally perceiving could record an
assensing
> in addition to the other five senses and his own emotions.

No. That's why they've never managed to perfect a Sorcery instructing
sim... they can never get the astral track to record.

> It seems somewhat implausible, but so does the entire concept of astral
> space :)

You mean as opposed to elves with fiber-optic nerves running cords out of
their head into a computer, while conversing with a large wolf and someone
who has had his soul removed?

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bard to the Lady Mari
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
*
The place to improve the world is in one's own heart and head and hands,
and then work outward from there. Other people talk about how to expand
the destiny of mankind. I just want to talk about how to fix a
motorcycle. I think that what I have to say has more lasting value.
-Robert Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
Message no. 6
From: Number Ten Ox <number_10_ox@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:33:03 -0700
---Duncan McNeill-Burton <dmcneill@************.EDU> wrote:

> I've never gotten around to buying Shadowbeat, so that's probably where
> the
> answer lies. Just the same I'm wondering whether someone with a Full-X
> sense link who happens to be astrally perceiving could record an assensing
> in addition to the other five senses and his own emotions.
>
> It seems somewhat implausible, but so does the entire concept of astral
> space :)

Just so. Shadowbeat states very clearly that no matter how expensive your
simsense rig, it just *doesn't* pick up anything Astral -- or anything
magical like spell casting. To the machine, there ain't nothing there.
(That's why simsense chips about magicians have to do with
computer-generated imagery when magical foo is involved.)



===
--Number 10, aka Aneirin Two-Tails.

"What's the blast radius of a mouse?"


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 7
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:10:25 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 04:27 PM 9/11/98 -0400, Duncan wrote:
>I've never gotten around to buying Shadowbeat, so that's probably
where the
>answer lies. Just the same I'm wondering whether someone with a
Full-X
>sense link who happens to be astrally perceiving could record an
assensing
>in addition to the other five senses and his own emotions.

Shadowbeat, p. 76.
"...magic itself does not record worth a hoot. Astral elements simply
don't show up in an ASIST recording. ... As far as ASIST is concerned
there ain't nothing going on."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNfn0FaPbvUVI86rNAQEaUgP7Brl0QAmqce4F178iz9axUIWXifomOuGF
5mztjCQ4Lu4vPCOv4GO0rLk3PBpIY0MFSDyn7tMcml1YdHBhOtZma2abMcHVrI+U
4Lrc5b248tQDJ5LTTVKgU/8tDoG2VXDtdA6I7cUgzwkQ16/bmBApWT2bdqvtviP0
jWKdk4Uh91I=
=/AbV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 8
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Simsense and astral perception
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:33:45 -0700
:> Actually, it says in Shadowbeat that astral activity doesn't
:>record well, even through a Full-X simrig.
:

That's not to say something couldn't be faked with "special effects",
either added in post editing or VIA an "entertainment" spell cast on the
sim actor.

Kinda like when a movie character takes drugs; you can mess up the
camera view, but it doesn't make the audience high.

Mongoose
Message no. 9
From: David Buehrer dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:48:21 -0700 (MST)
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
/
/ > Sims involving magical plotlines always use special effects for
/ > astral sequences, because astral perception just don't show on the
/ > recording.
/
/ Okay, all of this taken for the rules they are currently, a question comes to
/ the front?
/
/ Why Not?
/
/ My reasoning behind this is simply, ASIST has to do with recording sensations
/ and translating them into a representable medium. It is recording an "event"
/ (such as the events that may actually be transpiring in astral space a
/ magician is viewing), it is recording the "perceptual sensations" of the
/ magician who is doing the perceiving.
/
/ Personally, humility aside, the reason for this is simply to create a "cut and
/ dry" ruling concerning magical/matrix interaction.

I don't think so K :)

IMHO when a person is perceiving astrally they are almost, but not
quite, projecting astrally. Their preception of the astral plane is
being made by their astral form, not their physical form. Because they
haven't projected astrally, they are able to retain their physical
perceptions. This is also explains why a person who is astrally
perceiving is dual natured.

The simsense rig can't record the astral perception because it isn't
being experienced on the physical plane, it's being experienced on the
astral plane where the simsense rig doesn't exist.

I don't think it's a cut and dried rulling. I think it's an attempt to
maintain consistency with SR magic theory.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 10
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:51:02 EST
In a message dated 2/16/1999 2:51:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dbuehrer@******.carl.org writes:

> I don't think so K :)

Well I don't really care ;-P (drops chocolate Tim Tam crumbs while he's
typing)

> IMHO when a person is perceiving astrally they are almost, but not
> quite, projecting astrally. Their preception of the astral plane is
> being made by their astral form, not their physical form. Because they
> haven't projected astrally, they are able to retain their physical
> perceptions. This is also explains why a person who is astrally
> perceiving is dual natured.

And, as such, their physical "mundane" body is translating information that
their mind (which isn't physiologically any different than a mundane's) can
comprehend.

> The simsense rig can't record the astral perception because it isn't
> being experienced on the physical plane, it's being experienced on the
> astral plane where the simsense rig doesn't exist.

I agree, but that is why I call it the difference being recording the "event
itself" and recording the perceptual sensations of the user.

> I don't think it's a cut and dried rulling. I think it's an attempt to
> maintain consistency with SR magic theory.

Oh, so do I ultimately, but IMO, it's simply a cop-out at this time.

-K
Message no. 11
From: David Buehrer dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:46:04 -0700 (MST)
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
/
/ In a message dated 2/16/1999 2:51:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
/ dbuehrer@******.carl.org writes:
/
/ > I don't think so K :)
/
/ Well I don't really care ;-P (drops chocolate Tim Tam crumbs while he's
/ typing)

No Fair! How can you possibly expect me to effectively debate my side when
you have Tim Tams on your side?! ;)

/ > IMHO when a person is perceiving astrally they are almost, but not
/ > quite, projecting astrally. Their preception of the astral plane is
/ > being made by their astral form, not their physical form. Because they
/ > haven't projected astrally, they are able to retain their physical
/ > perceptions. This is also explains why a person who is astrally
/ > perceiving is dual natured.
/
/ And, as such, their physical "mundane" body is translating information that
/ their mind (which isn't physiologically any different than a mundane's) can
/ comprehend.

My fault, I didn't explain my point well.

When a person is astrally projecting they are perceiving the astral
plane with their astral form. IMO the brain does not play a role.
True, the meat body may twitch when the astral form is injured or
stressed but I feel that this is an autonomic response. I don't feel
that the process of information while astrally projecting involves the
brain.

I also feel that when a person is astrally perceiving that the brain
isn't involved at all. The perception of the astral and the processing
of this perception are handled by the perceiver's astral form and again
the brain is not involved.

I believe that that is why you can't record astral perception with
simsense. The act of astral perception and the processing of that
perception take place soley on the astral plane.

IMHO astral preception is 100% astral/spiritual.

/ > I don't think it's a cut and dried rulling. I think it's an attempt to
/ > maintain consistency with SR magic theory.
/
/ Oh, so do I ultimately, but IMO, it's simply a cop-out at this time.

Well, :) it may in fact be a cop out and I may be working to hard at
try to convince myself that the designers had the same idea I have.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 12
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:21:45 -0500 (EST)
> There is some reflection therefore upon the mind of the magician, the
> physical, recollective, mind of the individual that is using the Astral
> Perception abilities. It is being translated into something that the mind of
> the magician is capable of comprehending.

Is it? Or is it simply an entirely new sense that the magician
learns to use, a sense that doesn't really have any analog to any of the
existing senses. As you point out below, it is learned rather than
inherent. As such, how *can* it have any analog?

> Okay, time for *another* thread throwback here. Anyone else remember those
> discussions a while ago about "alternative methods of astral perception?",
> meaning "smell" and "sound" and "touch", for those
magicians that were born
> "blind." Think about all of this very closely, very slowly.

Well, I'd guess that that thread came up while I was away, so no,
I don't remember it. But that doesn't change the fact that a magician who
is born blind can still astrally perceive. I can think of no better
argument to show that astral perception and sight are unrelated.

> But, that viewpoint is subject to change and or enlightenment (depending
> upon the choice of words), and believe when I say you folks are helping
> me build one hell of a case in my favor.

...Only because you're selectively hearing what some of us have
been saying...

> Thus, it is called "Astral Perception", because it deals with translatory
> information that is "perceived" by the individual, whatever or wherever
their
> individual POV is found.

"Perceived" yes. "Seen" no.

> But the events that a magician perceives using "astral perception" are
> going to be reverse sensated by the individual.

Why? You have yet to give me a good reason for this.

> They will perceive "the aura of their subject", and in so doing their
> mind, having been trained, developed, and biased, is going to attempt to
> translate that into the one thing it understands the most. Visual
> Sight. Which then in turns fires the visual cortecis of the (meta)human
> mind. Hence, the ability to record.

No, no, and no. The magician has learned an entirely new sense.
That sense must necessarily be taking place elsewhere in the brain (as
pretty much all of the sensory cortex has been mapped)
Get it straight: astral perception is separate from all other
forms of sensory perception. It's not seeing a new frequency of light,
it's not hearing higher or lower tones, it's not feeling vibrations from
across the room, it's not being able to detect scents of people in the
next county.
Further, your argument of firing the visual cortex is flawed. If
you hear the sound of a car, you don't "see" a car, no matter how visually
acclimated you are. Even in the absence of visual sensory input, you will
not "see" a car if you hear one. You might imagine a car, but that's
going on in the cognitive centers of your brain. And if your visual
cortex is firing, we call this synesthesia, and it's a serious sensory
disorder (where things can smell blue, taste loud, and look salty).
So why doesn't sound trigger sight? Because they're two totally
different senses. Separate. Just like Astral Perception is separate. So
there's no reason why perceiving something astrally would cause you to
"see" anything. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?

[SNIP comments on recording sensations of casting spells]

Other than the concept of "aura synchronization" I agree with you.
Casting spells will definitely have physical sensations, as will the
resulting drain. The fatigue, nausea, burning, headaches, or pain
associated will all come through very well.
But again, this is stuff happening on the physical realm. And
even then, the sensation is incomplete. The audience won't "feel" the
concentration that the mage is going through (what does concentration feel
like?). They won't "feel" the aura synchronization that the mage uses to
target his spell (what does aura synchronization feel like?). ASIST
technology is not set up to be able to record these kinds of things, and
as such, the record will not represent the sum total of the mage's
experience, just a shadow of it.

> Simsense is a recording of (meta)human experience, nothing else, nothing less.

No, simsense is a recording of the metahuman *sensory* experience.
Nothing more. What you sense and how it's interpreted are totally
different. Your example of the sense of fatherly satisfaction at
successfully casting a spell is a good place to illustrate this. The
casting mage might feel the same satisfaction he got from watching his
child take his or her first steps. All that the simsense can record is a
euphoric sense of satisfaction and completeness. A member of the
audience, feeling this same sense of euphoric completeness, may be
reminded of the first time he was able to walk unassisted from his
wheelchair. Or she may remember giving birth to any or all of her
children. Or he may be reminded of the time his commanding officer gave
him a citation for bravery above and beyond the call of duty.
How a sense is interpreted is totally subjective. Simsense
doesn't record memories, so it really isn't possible to convey "this is
how I felt when my child took his first steps." What a simsense director
would be more likely to do (if he wanted to give such a feeling context),
is put in a scripted "flashback" vignette of the main character's child
(i.e. a baby cast in such a role) fictionally taking its first steps, and
play that same euphoric track simultaneously. That way, when the audience
felt that sensation later in the sim, they would have a context for it.
Barring this, much of what a sensation actually means is open to
individual, subjective interpretation by the viewer. Don't make simsense
into more than it actually is.

Marc
Message no. 13
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:27:01 EST
In a message dated 2/18/1999 9:24:42 AM US Eastern Standard Time, renouf@*****
int.com writes:

> Is it? Or is it simply an entirely new sense that the magician
> learns to use, a sense that doesn't really have any analog to any of the
> existing senses. As you point out below, it is learned rather than
> inherent. As such, how *can* it have any analog?

In the same manner I would suspect that people gain analogous perceptions of
their environment. For instance, I hear a noise, I imagine it's a car, my
mind quickly interprets it as such, and yes, even an image of a car comes
across. Fast-as-thought references move from there.

<snip throwback reference>
> Well, I'd guess that that thread came up while I was away, so no,
> I don't remember it. But that doesn't change the fact that a magician who
> is born blind can still astrally perceive. I can think of no better
> argument to show that astral perception and sight are unrelated.

Really? So far, this paragraph is the only one to actually have a beginning
of a solid counterpoint. There is something however ... (much further down)

> > But, that viewpoint is subject to change and or enlightenment (depending
> > upon the choice of words), and believe when I say you folks are helping
> > me build one hell of a case in my favor.
>
> ...Only because you're selectively hearing what some of us have
> been saying...

<no more so than you, yourself are now doing>

> > Thus, it is called "Astral Perception", because it deals with
translatory
> > information that is "perceived" by the individual, whatever or
wherever
> their
> > individual POV is found.
>
> "Perceived" yes. "Seen" no.

I'm not calling it "sight", I'm calling it perception. This is a case where
someone is selecting out a point of reference. I said that because so many of
*us* are visually oriented, we tend to draw analogous comparison to things in
terms of visual cues and descriptives.

> > But the events that a magician perceives using "astral perception"
are
> > going to be reverse sensated by the individual.
>
> Why? You have yet to give me a good reason for this.

It is, in many ways, similar to what happens when a person is dreaming or
recalling an event. There have since been (in OUR time) charting of the
visual cortex (as well s the auditory centers) actually "firing" during dream
sequences as well as those people with overpowering mnemonic recall (flashback
level stuff). That is what I am referring to when I say "reverse sensated".

> > They will perceive "the aura of their subject", and in so doing their
> > mind, having been trained, developed, and biased, is going to attempt to
> > translate that into the one thing it understands the most. Visual
> > Sight. Which then in turns fires the visual cortecis of the (meta)human
> > mind. Hence, the ability to record.
>
> No, no, and no. The magician has learned an entirely new sense.
> That sense must necessarily be taking place elsewhere in the brain (as
> pretty much all of the sensory cortex has been mapped)

Actually, it does NOT have to be taking place elsewhere in the brain, in fact,
just because the cortex has been mapped does NOT mean it is understood to it's
fullest. Reverse Sensation are one area of such where total comprehension is
not known as yet.

> Get it straight: astral perception is separate from all other
> forms of sensory perception. It's not seeing a new frequency of light,
> it's not hearing higher or lower tones, it's not feeling vibrations from
> across the room, it's not being able to detect scents of people in the
> next county.

Actually, it is exactly like all of those.

It is seeing the "brilliance" or "luminosity" of a given aura.

It is feeling the cold, "tactility" of a dark, oppressive event or place.

It is know the "smell" of fear, joy, ecstacy and more upon a given target. In
fact, it is capable of being used to "track" a target by their "aural
trace"
through the medium.

> Further, your argument of firing the visual cortex is flawed. If
> you hear the sound of a car, you don't "see" a car, no matter how visually
> acclimated you are. Even in the absence of visual sensory input, you will
> not "see" a car if you hear one. You might imagine a car, but that's
> going on in the cognitive centers of your brain. And if your visual
> cortex is firing, we call this synesthesia, and it's a serious sensory
> disorder (where things can smell blue, taste loud, and look salty).
> So why doesn't sound trigger sight? Because they're two totally
> different senses. Separate. Just like Astral Perception is separate. So
> there's no reason why perceiving something astrally would cause you to
> "see" anything. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?

Actually, I'm not having a hard time at all.

Perhaps it's time I retold a story, as you may have missed this. There are
people with different sensory perceptions (I'll remain visual for now). Some
of those sensory levels these people have are definitely BEYOND the normal
person. In fact, there are some people that "see" into wide band of the em
spectrum. Yes, it does sound like science fiction, but it does exist. And in
nearly all the cases (Arizona State University; Electrical Engineering
research, 1985-86) that I am aware of, the people had a habit of "seeing"
these senses, even if the research indicated it was something else entirely
(tactile acuity, olfactory mutation, etc...).

> [SNIP comments on recording sensations of casting spells]
>
> Other than the concept of "aura synchronization" I agree with you.
> Casting spells will definitely have physical sensations, as will the
> resulting drain. The fatigue, nausea, burning, headaches, or pain
> associated will all come through very well.

Yes.

> But again, this is stuff happening on the physical realm. And
> even then, the sensation is incomplete. The audience won't "feel" the
> concentration that the mage is going through (what does concentration feel
> like?). They won't "feel" the aura synchronization that the mage uses to
> target his spell (what does aura synchronization feel like?). ASIST
> technology is not set up to be able to record these kinds of things, and
> as such, the record will not represent the sum total of the mage's
> experience, just a shadow of it.

Which is what it does with ALL recordings actually. Read the sourcebooks that
FASA has been so bold, if just inconsistent, on putting forward.

> > Simsense is a recording of (meta)human experience, nothing else, nothing
> less.
>
> No, simsense is a recording of the metahuman *sensory* experience.
> Nothing more.

Okay, I'll take this in agreement, but, it changes nothing.

>What you sense and how it's interpreted are totally
> different. Your example of the sense of fatherly satisfaction at
> successfully casting a spell is a good place to illustrate this. The
> casting mage might feel the same satisfaction he got from watching his
> child take his or her first steps. All that the simsense can record is a
> euphoric sense of satisfaction and completeness. A member of the
> audience, feeling this same sense of euphoric completeness, may be
> reminded of the first time he was able to walk unassisted from his
> wheelchair. Or she may remember giving birth to any or all of her
> children. Or he may be reminded of the time his commanding officer gave
> him a citation for bravery above and beyond the call of duty.

True.

> How a sense is interpreted is totally subjective.

True, with a twist. Those senses can be manipulated and even redirected into
"sensing" something entirely different. "Synesthesia" as you point
out is
merely a way to have this happen.

>Simsense
> doesn't record memories, so it really isn't possible to convey "this is
> how I felt when my child took his first steps." What a simsense director
> would be more likely to do (if he wanted to give such a feeling context),
> is put in a scripted "flashback" vignette of the main character's child
> (i.e. a baby cast in such a role) fictionally taking its first steps, and
> play that same euphoric track simultaneously. That way, when the audience
> felt that sensation later in the sim, they would have a context for it.

THAT is exactly the kind of scripting that I am referring to. The recording
of the simsensual experience of a magician, to a "mundane" mind, would need
some kind of reference point. Referencing is what is the directed portion of
the (meta)human mind does anyway. It experiences something, even something
new, and attempts to relate it to something else it is familiar with. When it
does NOT recognize the sensation, it gets/achieves differing levels of
confusion. One of those is fear-like in it's effect (hence, in all honesty,
the sensation of fear associated with the unknown).

> Barring this, much of what a sensation actually means is open to
> individual, subjective interpretation by the viewer. Don't make simsense
> into more than it actually is.

I'm not, but again, I'm also not trying to make it or those that would be
using it into anything less.

-K
Message no. 14
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:23:17 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> In the same manner I would suspect that people gain analogous perceptions of
> their environment. For instance, I hear a noise, I imagine it's a car, my
> mind quickly interprets it as such, and yes, even an image of a car comes
> across. Fast-as-thought references move from there.

An image of a car comes across if you've ever seen a car. Have
you ever assensed the aura of a Great Form Storm Spirit? How would such a
thing come across? The point I'm trying to make is that there is no
analog to these things because they are a totally new phenomenon to the
perceiver's mind.

> > ...Only because you're selectively hearing what some of us have
> > been saying...
>
> <no more so than you, yourself are now doing>

I couldn't be responding in depth to your arguments if I was. You
will note that I am not simply spouting "no it can't, no it can't, no it
can't" in response to your "yes it can, yes it can, yes it can."

> I'm not calling it "sight", I'm calling it perception. This is a case
where
> someone is selecting out a point of reference. I said that because so many of
> *us* are visually oriented, we tend to draw analogous comparison to things in
> terms of visual cues and descriptives.

That doesn't mean that the person perceiving it will. If I was
deaf my entire life and was suddenly given my hearing, I wouldn't
interpret the sound as vision (look at the studies on cochlear implants
and you'll see my point). Astral perception would be much the same
in this regard.

> It is, in many ways, similar to what happens when a person is dreaming or
> recalling an event. There have since been (in OUR time) charting of the
> visual cortex (as well s the auditory centers) actually "firing" during
dream
> sequences as well as those people with overpowering mnemonic recall (flashback
> level stuff). That is what I am referring to when I say "reverse
sensated".

Gotcha. I would point out, however, that such "firing" is at an
extremely low (i.e. just above background) level, is quite fleeting, and
doesn't take place in all of the test subjects.

> > No, no, and no. The magician has learned an entirely new sense.
> > That sense must necessarily be taking place elsewhere in the brain (as
> > pretty much all of the sensory cortex has been mapped)
>
> Actually, it does NOT have to be taking place elsewhere in the brain, in fact,
> just because the cortex has been mapped does NOT mean it is understood to it's
> fullest. Reverse Sensation are one area of such where total comprehension is
> not known as yet.

Granted. Indeed, a case could be made that those capable of
astral perception have an overdeveloped visual cortex to deal with this
"extra sense." In this case however, the CAT-scan and NMR needed to
implant the simlink cyberware in the first place would pick it up. Thus,
a CAT-scan would become a new, dependable tool for finding those with
magical talent. The fact that it has not tends to imply that this sense
is associated with some other, lesser understood part of the brain.
Further, if we had the technology to be able to induce the brain
to see a virtual environment (a la the Matrix), one would think that our
knowledge of the structure and function of the sensory cortices would be
pretty advanced. It is 2060 in SR3, after all, and the technology is by
no means new (early ASIST coming about in the 2020's).

> Actually, it is exactly like all of those.
>
> It is seeing the "brilliance" or "luminosity" of a given aura.
>
> It is feeling the cold, "tactility" of a dark, oppressive event or place.
>
> It is know the "smell" of fear, joy, ecstacy and more upon a given target.
In
> fact, it is capable of being used to "track" a target by their "aural
trace"
> through the medium.

Is it "seeing" brilliance, or "sensing" the character of the aura?
Is it "feeling" cold, or "sensing" the oppressivity? Is it
"smelling" the
emotions, or "sensing" their lingering traces or presence? I tend to
think of it as another, separate sense entirely, whereas you seem to
always translate it into normal, physical sensory analogs. Why is the
concept of an entirely new sense with no analog so hard to grasp?

> Perhaps it's time I retold a story, as you may have missed this. There are
> people with different sensory perceptions (I'll remain visual for now). Some
> of those sensory levels these people have are definitely BEYOND the normal
> person. In fact, there are some people that "see" into wide band of the em
> spectrum. Yes, it does sound like science fiction, but it does exist. And in
> nearly all the cases (Arizona State University; Electrical Engineering
> research, 1985-86) that I am aware of, the people had a habit of "seeing"
> these senses, even if the research indicated it was something else entirely
> (tactile acuity, olfactory mutation, etc...).

I don't know about this. I can "smell" people's emotional states,
but now that the presence of human pheromones has been proven, I don't
feel crazy anymore. And it actually *would* be an olfactory sense,
confirming that my "smelling" of things was (more or less) using the right
sense). Do you have any other references on this phenomenon?
But in any event, how did the research prove that it was something
else entirely? Because that's where the activity was occurring in the
brain. If you're sensing the presence of some chemical via olfactory
mutation, your olfactory centers will fire. Even if you think you "see"
the chemical, your visual cortex isn't firing. Hence, even though you may
think you're "seeing" an aura, your visual cortex is dead as a doornail.
Hence, nothing for simsense to record there.

> > ASIST technology is not set up to be able to record these kinds of
> > things, and as such, the record will not represent the sum total of
> > the mage's experience, just a shadow of it.
>
> Which is what it does with ALL recordings actually. Read the
> sourcebooks that FASA has been so bold, if just inconsistent, on putting
> forward.

I *have* read all the sourcebooks, and I have yet to find
*anything* that supports your claim. Indeed, they are quite consistent in
*not* supporting your claim.

> > No, simsense is a recording of the metahuman *sensory* experience.
> > Nothing more.
>
> Okay, I'll take this in agreement, but, it changes nothing.

Yes, it does. Your examples have been rife with conveying the
"feelings" behind sensory input, something that simsense isn't capable of
as it is defined. If you want to use examples, make them correct.

> > How a sense is interpreted is totally subjective.
>
> True, with a twist. Those senses can be manipulated and even redirected into
> "sensing" something entirely different. "Synesthesia" as you
point out is
> merely a way to have this happen.

Perhaps, but synethesia represents either severe neurological
dysfunction or a genetically predisposed "cross-wiring" of the sensory
centers of the brain. It's not something that you can necessarily do in a
controlled way. In fact, Shadowbeat makes reference to synesthesia as a
side effect of prolonged BTL use and the neurological damage that such use
causes. It's not intentional, and is potentially damaging to the brain.

> >Simsense
> > doesn't record memories, so it really isn't possible to convey "this is
> > how I felt when my child took his first steps." What a simsense director
> > would be more likely to do (if he wanted to give such a feeling context),
> > is put in a scripted "flashback" vignette of the main character's
child
> > (i.e. a baby cast in such a role) fictionally taking its first steps, and
> > play that same euphoric track simultaneously. That way, when the audience
> > felt that sensation later in the sim, they would have a context for it.
>
> THAT is exactly the kind of scripting that I am referring to. The recording
> of the simsensual experience of a magician, to a "mundane" mind, would need
> some kind of reference point. Referencing is what is the directed portion of
> the (meta)human mind does anyway. It experiences something, even something
> new, and attempts to relate it to something else it is familiar with.

Right, so the record of what the mage feels is going to be quite
different than what the audience feels (again, what do intense
concentration and aura synchronization "feel" like? They're not
sensations, and thus will not be recorded as such).
When you extend this to astral perception, you have a problem.
Even if you assumed that the sensations could be recorded via
standard ASIST technology (which I don't), such impressions would be
totally meaningless to the audience.
You've said it yourself: assensing is a learned skill. You're not
born with it. It takes practice to be able to be able to do it
effectively, and it takes more skill to be able to interpret what you're
sensing with any degree of accuracy (i.e. the higher your Psychometry
skill, the better you are at reading auras, background counts, etc).
So even if the sensation is recorded, it's meaningless to the
audience. It makes no sense because there's no context for it. It's a
blind man at a beauty contest. Worse yet, magic is granted to be *highly*
individual. Other *mages* may have no basis to understand what they're
getting from your sensorium.

> When it does NOT recognize the sensation, it gets/achieves differing
> levels of confusion.

My point exactly.

What does this all add up to? The fact that astral stuff doesn't
record onto simsense. As described in Shadowbeat. As backed up by the
(consistent) descriptions of how simsense works in other sourcebooks
(including the main book). Where does the inconsistency lie? The only
things I have seen that make the whole thing inconsistent are the
assumptions and assertions that you have been making.

Marc
Message no. 15
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:36:39 EST
As there was a "flame" warning from Gridsec so recently, I'll reply here.


In a message dated 2/18/1999 1:25:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time, renouf@*****
int.com writes:

> Why is the
> concept of an entirely new sense with no analog so hard to grasp?

It isn't hard to grasp. Not hard at all. It's the idea of creating a new
being, a new "perceiver" that has no such analogs that is.

-K
Message no. 16
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:12:37 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> > Why is the concept of an entirely new sense with no analog so hard to
> > grasp?
>
> It isn't hard to grasp. Not hard at all. It's the idea of creating a new
> being, a new "perceiver" that has no such analogs that is.

Whoa! Stop the presses. Creating a new being? Maybe the reason
we're having such difficulty coming to a consensus on this issue is
because we're talking about totally different things.
Are we no longer dicussing whether or not ASIST will record astral
perception? Did I miss a segue somewhere?

Marc (who's looking through his old messages with a perplexed look on his
face)
Message no. 17
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:03:13 EST
In a message dated 2/18/1999 3:16:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time, renouf@*****
int.com writes:

>
> Whoa! Stop the presses. Creating a new being? Maybe the reason
> we're having such difficulty coming to a consensus on this issue is
> because we're talking about totally different things.
> Are we no longer dicussing whether or not ASIST will record astral
> perception? Did I miss a segue somewhere?
>
> Marc (who's looking through his old messages with a perplexed look on his
> face)

Marc, you are discussing the concept of a person that would develop Astral
Perception as a portion of the brain that is a couple of things.

Apparently not being widely used now at this time (pre-SR type history)

And acts a sensory translator for the information that is made available to
the mind via this new sensory input (astral perception).

As ALL being in SR are derived from human stock (HEY- PATRICK!!! You'll like
this one! ;-P), then all portions of their (meta)human mind are apparently
functionally compatible enough that they are mappable enough to perform
cybernetic implantation (IMS, Encephalon, Datajack) and neural augmentation
(Mnemonic Enhancer, Cerebral Booster).

Now then, with *THAT* fact in mind, and your concept of a new portion of the
mind itself "awakenings" to the sensations of astral perception, which all
that information is being translated by *something* to be useful/usable
information for the individual doing the perception, then perhaps the idea
that the *USER* is just like (well...okay, more or less like) you and I.

Normal, mundane, people who make analogous comparisons to the experiences they
sensate during the course of their lives through their, ever-growing, array of
experiences previous to the point in current.

In other words, we are all "people", and as such we are likely to function
(physiologically) like everyone else, even with another "sensory option" built
in. We are going to relate that information to whatever it is we have learned
and compare it to stuff that has happened to us previously. If we don't, then
it well and truly is something NEW, and in either case, we are still as
(meta)human beings going to draw analogous comparisons to the event, if, when
and where, possible.

It is how *WE* are.

I'm not inventing a new species, but by seperating a new sensory relationship
with the a given mind and saying it's a "NEW SENSORY TYPE", then in effect,
you are well and truly creating and entirely new species type.

And seeing as how there are human, ork, troll, dwarven, shaper, vampire,
elven, immortal, draconic and *other* (1% of the New Seattle population still
;-) magicians, then that is NOT a consideration where astral perception is
concerned, and in several of those categories, it is also NOT a defining
difference for the category of ASIST/Simsense technology.

-K (who admits, dragons yes....*other*, well, I'll wait until I meet one..
;-)
Message no. 18
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:56:58 -0500 (EST)
A little long, but please bear with me...

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> Marc, you are discussing the concept of a person that would develop Astral
> Perception as a portion of the brain that is a couple of things.
>
> Apparently not being widely used now at this time (pre-SR type history)

There is much of the brain that we do not understand as of yet.
We have some guesses, but that's pretty much all they are.

> And acts a sensory translator for the information that is made available to
> the mind via this new sensory input (astral perception).

Well, acts as a sensor/focus/control of astral energy.
Translation or interpretation happens in the cognitive brain.

> As ALL being in SR are derived from human stock (HEY- PATRICK!!! You'll like
> this one! ;-P), then all portions of their (meta)human mind are apparently
> functionally compatible enough that they are mappable enough to perform
> cybernetic implantation (IMS, Encephalon, Datajack) and neural augmentation
> (Mnemonic Enhancer, Cerebral Booster).

Yes, certainly correct. But consider the following: you don't
seem to have a problem with the fact that some people can work magic and
others can't. I ask you, what part of the body allows one to control,
shape, and project magical energy into the physical realm? The fact
remains that there is *something* different about mages. Shadowtech
postulates the existence of a magical "metagene" that dictates whether or
not a being will have magical abilities. Is this metagene purely
hereditary, or does its expression depend on environmental factors (much
like some genes that respond to hormone levels in the womb, resulting in
marked differences in a pair of "identical" twins conceived from the exact
same egg and sperm)? Who knows? But it's still a difference.
And this leads me to believe that the brain of a mage is different
than that of a mundane. Given that difference, it does not seem at all
odd that this extra (or most likely overdeveloped) portion of the brain is
passing information directly to the cognitive brain (hence you "know"
that someone is feeling such-and-such way because your astral sense tells
you so).
Unfortunately, ASIST does not hook to the cognitive brain. If
this overdeveloped part of the brain that controls magic exists outside
the sensory/emotive centers of the brain, a simsense recording will not
pick up its signals. Period.

> Now then, with *THAT* fact in mind, and your concept of a new portion of the
> mind itself "awakenings" to the sensations of astral perception, which all
> that information is being translated by *something* to be useful/usable
> information for the individual doing the perception, then perhaps the idea
> that the *USER* is just like (well...okay, more or less like) you and I.

It's not being translated. An entirely new mental "language" is
being learned. Remember that assensing is not only an ability but a
skill. If you have an entirely new sense, you need to learn what that
sense means. People who have been deaf their entire lives and who have
been given their hearing must learn to recognize sound. At first, all is
cacophonous noise of overwhelming confusion. Only after a long while do
they begin to be able to discern and recognize speech from background
noise. Then they start to be able to distinguish individual voices. This
is completely ignoring the fact that they don't know what the words mean,
because they've never heard them spoken.
If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you would
have us believe that someone who was deaf from birth (and thus had no
analog for hearing) would "translate" this new sense into something they
had experience with. As such, are you implying that their new sense of
hearing would express itself as vision or smell or touch?
Put simply, medical science's observation with cochlear implants
has shown that this is simply *not* the case. It takes them a while to be
able to process the information coming from their new sense accurately,
but it really is an *entirely new sense* to them.
So if a human mind is used to but 5 physical senses (disregarding
proprioreceptive, motor, etc), the awakening of an astral sense would be
an *entirely* new experience. No analog. Yes, at first it would be very
confusing (a point that you brought up in your last post, and that I fully
agree with). But after a while, repeated observation and more exposure
will allow you to be better able to analyze what you "sense" with this new
ability.
For example, a person's aura has a certain sensation to it, and
you can see that that person is red-faced and shouting. Sooner or later,
you will associate that aural sensation with "anger." Later down the
road, you sense that same thing coming from someone else's aura. They're
not red-faced and shouting, but you can tell that they are angry. Thus,
you have information coming in from a new sense that others do not have.
"How do you know he's angry?" your friends ask. How do you express it?
Have you ever tried to explain sight to a blind man? You have a sense
that they don't. Even if you could give them the same sensation you have
(which you may not be able to do depending on how we decide simsense works
and where the sensation comes from), they would have no basis for
understanding, and would be just as confused as you were when you were
first exposed to astral sensations.

> Normal, mundane, people who make analogous comparisons to the experiences they
> sensate during the course of their lives through their, ever-growing, array of
> experiences previous to the point in current.

Ever growing array of experiences yes. Ever growing array of
senses no. Simsense doesn't record "experience" directly. It records the
sensory stimulus that leads to experience. We've been over this before
with the "fatherly satisfaction" thing.

> In other words, we are all "people", and as such we are likely to function
> (physiologically) like everyone else, even with another "sensory option"
built
> in.

Yes, but if you are exposed to something *entirely new* what
happens? If I show you a picture of some object you've never seen before,
you have no context for it. If it's something highly unusual, you may
have no idea what it is, what it does, or why it was created. You say,
"that's nice" but it doesn't mean anything to you. Now imagine that
you've been blind your entire life and I give you your sight and show
you this picture. Not only do you not know what it is, you may not even
know you're looking at a picture. You have *no* information to draw
parallels with.
And contrary to what you're implying, you won't relate it to
previous experience, because nothing fits. The picture won't sound funny
simply because vision isn't what you're used to dealing with.

> I'm not inventing a new species, but by seperating a new sensory relationship
> with the a given mind and saying it's a "NEW SENSORY TYPE", then in effect,
> you are well and truly creating and entirely new species type.
> And seeing as how there are human, ork, troll, dwarven, shaper, vampire,
> elven, immortal, draconic and *other* (1% of the New Seattle population still
> ;-) magicians, then that is NOT a consideration where astral perception is
> concerned...

Again, in that case why do you NOT have a problem with some
members of a species being different enough to shape magic? A mundane
Dwarf and a mage Dwarf are *somehow* different, even though they are of
the same species. Why should perception be any different? Given the
existence of a magical metagene, then they are in effect different.
Perhaps a different "species" is the wrong way to think about it, and
different "subspecies" would be more appropriate. After all, metahumans
can interbreed, and thus are of the same species (regardless of subspecies
[nobilis, robustus, ingentis, etc]), much like different breeds of dogs.
Further, vampires, ghouls, banshees, wendigoes, and dzoo-noo-qua
are labeled as standard metatpyes infected with an awakened virus. Does
this virus change the portion of their body that controls magic? Who
knows. Essence drain would imply that it does, as would various
paranormal abilities. But then again, there are vampires that can't work
magic (other than their inherent paranormal powers) so perhaps not.

> and in several of those categories, it is also NOT a defining
> difference for the category of ASIST/Simsense technology.

Why must this be? Just because by pituitary gland makes my body
grow large, knobby calcium deposits doesn't mean that my visual cortex is
any different. Why should having some other part of my brain that
controls (or is sensitive to) magic be different from yours imply that my
sensory centers are different? It doesn't have to. Some people have
blonde hair. Are you implying that they see differently and are a
completely different species than those with brown hair? There can be
substantial genetic differences in individual memebers of the same species
(and it's a good thing, otherwise natural selection would have killed us
off long ago).
Again, ASIST only records those impulses that are occurring in the
sensory/emotive centers of the brain. Interpretation of those signals is
cognitive, something that simsense (as defined) does *not* record. If you
are getting a sim-actor's simsense feed, you don't know what he's
thinking. You don't know what he's remembering. If you did, it would
take all the fun out of it. "Okay...my line's coming up...and..cue! 'I'll
save you miss!'" But it doesn't work that way. You feel the actor's
throat vibrate, feel his mouth move, feel his lungs pushing out air, hear
the words he's saying, see the reactions that the other characters have to
it. But apart from the raw sensations, the interpretations of those
sensations are up to the audience.
And finally, since you're only recording the sensory/emotive
information, if astral perception is occurring in the "magic
gland" the impulses that go on there won't be recorded.
Does this make sense?

Marc
Message no. 19
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:51:11 EST
In a message dated 2/19/1999 11:00:48 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
renouf@********.com writes:

> And finally, since you're only recording the sensory/emotive
> information, if astral perception is occurring in the "magic
> gland" the impulses that go on there won't be recorded.
> Does this make sense?

Yes Marc, it does, but since you apparently won't give ground towards my
end/possibility, I won't give the ground on yours for this topic. David B.
came up with a much simpler, far easier way, to reach a potential than you
have.

And, after rereading a few things these last couple of days, I'm going to have
to wait until next weekend (IF I get the time to ask the right questions) to
have any answers of any kind, as I can give my point and yours all at the same
time now (something you apparently won't or can't consider).

It's simply going to be one of those "we simply disagree" things I guess.

-K (because you haven't considered memory yet to it's fullest in this part of
things)
Message no. 20
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Simsense and Astral Perception
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:19:00 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> Yes Marc, it does, but since you apparently won't give ground towards my
> end/possibility, I won't give the ground on yours for this topic. David B.
> came up with a much simpler, far easier way, to reach a potential than you
> have.

Sorry to break it to you, but Dave and I are saying essentially
the exact same thing. He's just better at stating it simply, I guess. :)

> as I can give my point and yours all at the same time now (something you
> apparently won't or can't consider).

Don't be stupid. I'd be perfectly willing to recant my position
on the topic if you gave me a single *good* argument. You have not. I
guess it boils down to the fact that Dave and I have a view that is not
only internally consistent, but more than adequately explains why the
material in the published rules is the way it is.
Your view, on the other hand, poses some serious problems for
simsense as it exists as written in the game, and fails to explain the
published material. I guess I see that as a "lose/lose" situation.

> It's simply going to be one of those "we simply disagree" things I guess.

If that's what it takes. Like I said, give me an argument that
makes sense and I'll buy it. As it is, I get the impression that you only
read about 1/10th of any of my posts, because I thought I had refuted each
of your points in enough depth to make myself clear. Either that or I'm
just not wording things correctly.

> -K (because you haven't considered memory yet to it's fullest in this part of
> things)

Here we go again. This is another situation where we differ in
opinion about what simsense is capable of. Both I and the published rules
make it *very* clear that simsense records only the sensory/emotive
information. Are you maintaining that it actually records memory? Give
me a reference for this, as nothing I've ever seen about simsense backs
up this point of view. If it did record memory, there would be no need of
skillwires, would there? You could just get the benefit of someone else's
years or decades of experience directly. Since this is not the case, it
would imply that memory is not, and in fact can not be recorded directly.
Alternately, if you're talking about "reverse sensation" of
sensory/emotive parts of the brain firing in response to memories, I'd
like references (other than the ones I've already seen) that say that this
is in any way something other than very minor sympathetic neural activity.
I have a hard time believing that just by mnemonically "visualizing" a
place or object that your visual cortex would sympathetically fire
strongly enough to be able to give any meaningful signal for recording.
This also doesn't address the fact that if astral perception is an
entirely new sense, that reverse sensation is going on somewhere
completely separate from the normal sensory/emotive centers normally
wired for ASIST recording. So remembering someone's aura causes
that area to be sympathetically stimulated, not the visual cortex. Hence,
even reverse sensation won't cause anyone to be able to "see" astral
space in response to a memory.

Marc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Simsense and Astral Perception, 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!