| From: | Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU |
|---|---|
| Subject: | THANK YOU!! (Re: Simsense and Astral Perception) |
| Date: | Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:32:23 -0500 (EST) |
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, David Buehrer wrote:
>
> > / I'm going to do some looking, if it is recorded at the point between senso\
> ry
> > / organ and brain, then you are most likely correct, it will not work.
> >
> > Based on the simple statement in the rules that astral perception can't
> > be recorded I'm inclinded to believe that simsense recorders directly
> > record the sensory information before it's processed by the brain.
>
> Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhh!!! This is what I've been saying the whole
> time, with the exception that I term "process" slightly differently.
No it isn't, that's what I've been saying! :) Seriously,
David has stated this much better than I did during a late-night
session at work, and I've been staying out of the argument until I
could retrieve my copy of Shadowbeat and read it again. :)
As a short version: I see the brain in the SR world as being
a blackbox with known inputs and outputs. Most of the brain surgery
in SR involves a much lesser knowledge of what's going on in there.
Cerebral Booster: Let's shove some extra brain matter in
there and see what happens. Ooh, it's marketable!
Mnemonic Enhancer: Same thing, but with a different kind of
brain matter.
Anyways, I'm going to respond to the message I've been putting
off...
From: Ereskanti@***.com
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:29:18 EST
To: shadowrn@*********.org, guilleme@******.cc.purdue.edu,
Hollar@******.cc.purdue.edu, FASAMike@***.com
>SHODAN+@***.EDU writes:
>> Anyways, I make a couple of clearly stated assumptions. I also move
>> some stuff around, so my apologies if I've misinterpreted your words.
>
>And in so moving, you have changed the bias or relationship of the wording.
>That is part of my discussion/argument.
I've noticed that this happens whenever I snip more than about
30% of the original post, so I just ask the original poster to make it
clear if and how something has changed.
>> My interpretation of what can and can't be done: Indirect
>> illusion spells, and other physical spells record on simsense.
>> Mana-based illusions, and other mana-based spells do not record,
>> though their effects will record (the wound from a manabolt will
>> register for example (it's real hard to miss), but the manabolt may
>> not be visible.)
>
> Please note, one piece of cyberware. Sense Link
I noted that piece of cyberware when forming my argument, and
it's pretty much the perfect example of what I'm talking about here.
Why do you bring it up?
The sense link, to the best of my knowledge, *is* a
lowish-grade simsense hookup. What it does, is it reads the sensory
input coming in from the body, and records it somewhere. If you're
astrally perceiving, the sense link will continue to record what your
eyes are seeing, and will probably get something as exciting as the
inside of the mage's eyelids.
> > As far as actual rulings go, the only things I have seen are
> > that things on the astral plane don't record. All other "Magic does
> > not record on simsense" statements have been pretty vague.
>
> True, but don't get "Simsense Recordings" and "Trideo Recordings"
mixed up.
I do, and I don't later on in the post. I deliberately try to portray
the two recording technologies as being related when being recorded
from cybereyes.
> > I missed this thread the first time. It's always been my
> > impression that a blind magician, regardless of whether he was always
> > blind, or his eyes were sewn shut 5 seconds ago, gains the ability of
> > sight, as seen through the astral plane. For a blind magician, this
> > is the same as normal sight, but the only one available to him. It
> > does not, IMHO, manifest as a different sense.
>
> BUT, how does "normal sight" translate to the mind of a person who has
never
> had "sight" in the first place?
It translates the same way "normal sight" would translate for
a newborn baby, with less ability to adapt, if the person is older.
If simsense technology could fix these problems, there would be no
such thing as a "blind" flaw.
It's much like my take on a magician who has never had "normal
vision" astrally perceiving. He develops the equivalent sense, and
uses it. If he then installed cybereyes, they wouldn't have the same
learning curve as someone who has never been able to see at all.
> > > Simsense is using ASIST technology, from both the playing and recording
> > ends
> > > of the business (literally in Shadowbeat's definitions).
> >
> > Now, here's my big point of debate. You see ASIST technology
> > as recording further along than I have always seen it.
>
> Actually, not really. I however have been *very* careful to not get
"ASIST"
> and "Trideo" mixed up.
Actually, you've been stating all along that your version of
ASIST is recording from the brain itself, not from the inputs that are
going into the brain. IMHO, this is how your POV comes across.
> > > Simsense is a recording of (meta)human experience, nothing else,
> > > nothing less.
> >
> > Is it? I've always seen simsense as a recording of the input
> > your body receives, recorded as it enters your brain. You don't
> > *feel* the happiness in the person who has been recorded. You feel
> > the endorphin rush that the simstar felt, because one has been
> > triggered in your body.
>
> And thus, your mind (re)creates the experience of it all. What's the phrase?
> "...from a certain point of view?"
So, how can your mind (re)create the experience of astral
perception, if all the ASIST is recording on the visual track is the
pattern of the inside of your eyelids, while the original brain is
seeing astral space?
>>> 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. Simsense is NOT going
>to
>>> record the actual "light sensory" that is incoming, that is what
the "
>> Video
>>> Link" or "Eye Camera" are there for. No, it is recording the
interaction
>>of
>>> sensations with the (meta)human mind.
>>
>> I disagree here. I see a raw simsense recording as the
>> sensations a body feels, as it enters the brain. IMHO, if a simsense
>> signal can place a signal in after it has been translated by the
>> visual cortex, the same recording technology could be used to scan
>> surface thoughts, dig through memory, or produce a
>> visual-cortex-on-a-chip.
>
>Actually, it can, especially in lue of the concepts of skillsofts (any
>category) as well as Cyberdeck technology and "BTL/Psychotropic"
>considerations.
Show me an example of this, that clearly involves mucking
around *directly* with the brain. My take on BTLs is that the art of
projecting subliminal messages has advanced quite a bit with the new
technology. The pleasure/pain/etc inputs are being stimulated so that
new associations occur, but not to the conscious mind.
>> I also like the idea of a more unified technology, so that a
>> Video Link/Eye Camera combo are the same sort of technology used in
>> simsense, or perhaps derived in the oppposite order. I don't see the
>> two technologies as being unlinked.
>
>This is what I was referring to as getting "Trideo" and "ASIST"
mixed up.
Very well, skip this paragraph, it's going off on a tangent
anyways. However, the original point of this paragraph is that *I*
feel that the Video Link/Eye Camera is taking ASIST input and
converting it into Trideo. I do not have the two mixed up, but
instead, I see them as related. I guess that could be defined as a
"deliberate mixup", and if you choose to do so, then I guess I have
the two mixed up.
>> SR also lists the brain (and spine, to a lesser extent) as
>> being the big things still mysterious to science in the SR world. I
>> find it more plausible that simsense can reecord the input as it
>> enters the brain, rather than recording a brain map, and feeding the
>> same mapping onto the viewer of the simsense.
>
>I'm honestly afraid you have lost me in this paragraph? What exactly is the
>difference? "record the input as it enters the brain" vs. "recording a
brain
>map" and then continuing with "feeding the same mapping?" Tell me,
what's a
>"MAP" at this point in your discussion? It would help me understand what
you
>are saying.
You've lost me, because my definition of "brain map" is one
step short of handwaving. Let me redefine "brain map" as "how you
think ASIST technology works", and "how I feel ASIST technology works"
as grabbing the inputs before they hit the brain and playing them back
in a similar manner.
What you describe involves a large amount of mucking around in
the brain, while what I see is more of mucking around with the inputs
to the brain.
>True and Not True all at the same time. Sadly, IMO, "Emotions" are
reflected
>in pscyhoreactive chemical interaction that occurs within your (and mine and
>*their*) body.
Yep. In addition, Simsense doesn't always record the emotive
track, only in the high-grade recordings.
> Sure, we'd like to liken them to a higher function, but to
>Science, that simply isn't going to be happening anytime in the near(distant?)
>future. By manipulating broad PR Chemical ("...tropinism" terminology
abounds
>here) interaction and/or even the neural "firing" of various synaptic
>activities, it becomes possible to "simulate" the various
"stimulations" of
>another target.
Yes, this seems to be how ASIST mimics emotions. I'm not
clear where you were going with this. Could you provide more
direction? Recording the emotional state of the caster when he casts
a spell doesn't amount to recording a spell.
>> Besides, if all that shows up on simsense is the psychological
>> effect of "yay, my spell worked", followed by a migraine, *I* think
>> that's a good example of magic not recording very well.
>
>No, actually that's a recording that works well, but is simply not understood
>by the person who is experiencing the recording.
I think we're in complete disagreement on whether something
records well. IMHO, when the shadowtalk says that magic doesn't
record worth a damn, the description I give above is a fine example of
a recording that isn't going to sell, and provides no insight as to
what's going on (i.e., doesn't record worth a damn).
*There's nothing in there that cannot be duplicated with a
hologram and a blow to the head.*
This is pretty key... Watching the playback, you have no idea
exactly what actions he went through to perform the casting of a
spell. With mundane actions, you know. The body is giving you input
in response. With spellcasting, you can do it even if you're
completely paralyzed, as long as your eyes work well enough to see the
target.
> What a way to experience
>your first exposure to "drain", especially devastating levels of it.
>Experienced magician is using the "recorder" at the time of the
spellcasting,
>and suffers the drain for the actions. Simsense Editorial Staff takes the
>recording, replays it through a modulations console (not completely unlike an
>equalizer for one's stereo, except that the input/output is different) and
>makes certain to include certain "safety overrides" in the final recording,
>just to make certain someone doesn't have a coronary at the time.
Alternatively, someone simrecords someone with a migraine. An
experienced magician with a trode set watches the playback, and offers
advice on how to make it more accurate. A sim technician fiddles with
the output, and the cycle repeats. You now have a simrecording of
"drain" indistiguishable from actual drain.
Mark
