| From: | Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Simsense and Astral Perception |
| Date: | Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:27:01 EST |
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
