| From: | Marc Renouf renouf@********.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Simsense and Astral Perception |
| Date: | Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:56:58 -0500 (EST) |
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
