| From: | Marc Renouf renouf@********.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Simsense and Astral Perception |
| Date: | Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:21:45 -0500 (EST) |
> 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
