Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Transparent to the eye, but not the mind
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Eyeless Blond
Copied from the Invisible Flashlight thread:

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
Sooo... How are all of you going to fit these physical explanations of Improved Invisibility with the fact that it allows someone who succesfully resists the spell to see the target as normal?

QUOTE (Witness @ Jun 2 2006, 03:20 PM)
Dang. He's got us!

QUOTE (knasser)
No he hasn't! He's actually solved the whole problem I think, though I'd lay 5 nuyen.gif he doesn't know it.

How can one person see the mage and another not? Clearly the light isn't warping around the mage himself, but warping or editing the light as it approaches each of the witnessing characters, critters & cameras. This solves problems of warping light in such a way that you are invisible from any direction. It solves the problem of emitting infra-red radiation from within the "bubble" or indeed light from the flashlight of the original question.

It doesn't solve the problem of the invisible wall, exactly. Drek! He's got us.


The rest from me:
That's kinda how I always figured it worked. It basically solves everything, though it leads to some interesting conclusions:

1) No internal overheating. The IR radiation still leaves your body; the photons just get "edited" before getting to that troll's thermographic eyes.
2) An invisible wall would not allow targetting through it. The photons are still bouncing off the wall; they're just being edited before they hit your eyes to make the wall invisible.
2a) This leads to an interesting complication: what would you see instead of the invivible wall? This question has no simple answer. My vote is that you will see whatever it is you expect to see; essentially your brain will "make up" whatever it needs to to render the wall invisible to your vision. See ***NOTE ON VISION*** below before going further.
3) The MP laser leads to an interesting conclusion. Now, obviously the laser would strike the invisible person, and damage him as well. The spell would, however, edit everyone's vision so neither the person nor, naturally, the damage to said person would be seen.
4) Similarly, a person in the rain would still be invisible. The image would be edited so that the rain looked to be falling straight down, even though it was in fact bouncing off the invisible person. Those who argue that you'd see the rain bouncing off the person, and thus see their outline, are totally off-base. Remember that what you're "seeing" does not necessarily need to have anything to do with physical reality, as you are under the effects of an illusion spell which specifically targets your vision.
4a) On the other hand, if you were standing right nest to the person, you would still be able to feel the spray of rain bouncing off of him, and would thus be able to infer something odd's going on if you were paying attention. Remember invisability affects vision only; invisability does not make someone transparent to touch, smell, hearing, or, more importantly, logic. biggrin.gif
5) The invisible flashlight would still emit light. It wouldn't matter, though, because the light would be edited out of everything that could see it, rendering the flashlight effectively useless.

Doesn't that make sense? If the devs would just replace "warping" with "editing" it would solve everything. smile.gif

***NOTE ON VISION***: This whole "seeing what you expect to see" thing actually makes a lot more sense than you may realise. Here's the thing: the brain already "makes up" a surprising amount of what you think you are actually "seeing". Take a look at this site for a demonstration and explainnation of a specific instance of this effect, the blind spot in your eyes that you're likely not aware you even have. There's also the more famous illusions of motion you get from viewing several still pictures

Going back to the invisible wall thing, your brain will likely be persuaded to "make up" whatever it needs to to make that wall invisible. pulling from your memories, your other senses, whatever it needs to. If you know what's in the other room through other means (having been there before, etc) then you'll see what you saw there before; otherwise your brain could make up just about anything, so long as the wall remains invisible.


Discuss? smile.gif
Cold-Dragon
The only flaw I can see with most of it is that it's all theories - all of it is pretty much based off the fact there are flaws with using it one way or another.

Take the wall trick for example, technically, the whole wall is the entire complex it's attached to (or else whenever the 'wall' properly terminates). By the book, you would technically make that entire wall vanish. Obviously, that's a bit too much for a 'simple' spell to do, so what probably happens is people limit it to a few meters span or something like that. Regardless of how you deal with that, you get, as you mentioned, the issue with 'what is on the other side'.

I don't agree with your 'mind will stick in something it feels is there' routine. I do understand how the brain works in that fashion, but I don't agree it'll do that to the invisible wall and what's on the other side. By the very lack of what's on the other side, anyone who doesn't know what isn't there has to either put competely random assumptions (Oh look! It looks JUST like the inside of my Grandmothers musty old house - oh my god! Grandma, why are you working for the enemy!?) Or else you get the blank effect - there is nothing there, there is nothing to see, etc, etc.


Of course, now that I say all that, I did have a thought into another possibility of the 'bending light' trick' of the spell. What if, by the bending of light as they suggestion, they're not turning it around, but letting it go through the object in question?

Then you go into the physics of atoms, density, particles, rays, etc, etc. What the spell could be doing is getting the light through the objects so you see through them, because whenever the light bounces back, the spell sends the light back through the object again.

By that theory, you could 'see' through a wall, because what's beyond the wall did have the light bounce off it, and thus when whatever gets back to your eyes, you 'see' it.

I don't want to get into the IR's or ultravision or otherwise, but if it works on light, one might say it works on those too. Granted, it could be possible to claim Thermovision sees through such tricks (which make sense if it doesn't block heat, after all).

Gah, I rambled...but I think I got some of the idea along. ow's that?

- - -

Oh yeah, I forgot to tackle the 'everyone gets a chance to save or fail' part of the business, didn't I?

Since we're talking magic, cheating the laws of physics, and other such things, my excuse here is there is more light hitting the target than what goes to the eyes, so what the spell is doing is trying to make the light that 'slides through' be what the person uses to translate what's before them. That being said, there is bound to still be light that wasn't manipulated by the spell hitting the eyes as well, so you are getting dual stimulations. THe spell, therefore, tries to make you believe what it wants you to believe over what else your eyes picked up.

a bit more around the bush, but I feel better now.
booklord
So what physical invisibility is in this theory an ongoing interactive physical illusion rather than a warping of light or (under my theory ) an absorption and retransmission of light. Interesting.....



How can a human make himself invisible to say a troll with thermographic vision? The information needed for the physical illusion can't be coming from the human because he can't see the thermographic visual range. So the spell must be getting the info from the trolls brain....

How about a robotic drone with thermographic sensors? In this case the human can't see the thermographic visual range and he can't read it from the robotic drone's "mind" either. I can't help but feel that in this instance the human magician would be visible to the drone. The spell lacks a viable subject to use for editting the thermographic light.

Now how about a situation where the magician casts a physical invisibility spell on a friend's drone. Then while the magician sits back and concentrates on sustaining the spell the drone travels into an enemy facility and sneaks past some automated security cameras?


( Feel free to poke holes in my theory as well. Honestly I doubt there is any "perfect" solution. )
Cold-Dragon
Okay, well, re-reading the spell, it does include thermo, low light, and the rest...so long as it is on the visual spectrum.

So in the case of visual sensors or thermographic trolls, I guess it does more than light...although I suppose if light has a bit of heat to it...bah, I don't know how the thermo works like that! >.<

Obviously, it manipulates more than the basic crap.

As per why it would work on robots: the mana version would be affecting the mind, the physical version would be using the whole light trick thingamajig against the drones sensors (if you get the right light, etc, etc. My version it involves tricking the system much like a human mind, but that involves the objects OR over intuition or whatever).

Going by Blond's version...I'll let it answer that when it shows up again.
Edward
The problem with the seeing what you expect to see comes with improved invisibility.

What dose a camera expect to see. Having it show the people what they each expect would be giving the spell a lot of power. Somebody that watches the tape 3 months after the caster is dead sees something other than the simple image on the tape.

And what about the invisible cover on a light trick. Using the invisibility (not improved) on an opaque “lenses” at force 1 but choosing not to resist the spell yourself. Now you cant see the cover, and thus the light spills out and illuminates your surroundings. Your enemies however resist the illusion (because they don’t know to deliberately permit it) now you have a light nobody outside of your team can see buy.

Edward
Cold-Dragon
Somewhat blatant advertisement for my garbled version, but my theory would allow the flashlight to work despite that, since it's about the things going through/around it...

The light isn't the object itself, so I don't see it getting the benefit with it. Same with a bullet out of a gun.
Eyeless Blond
The irony to this whole discussion is that the same debate is likely raging in-character, in the ivory towers of hermetic academia. smile.gif

QUOTE (booklord)
How can a human make himself invisible to say a troll with thermographic vision?  The information needed for the physical illusion can't be coming from the human because he can't see the thermographic visual range.  So the spell must be getting the info from the trolls brain....

How about a robotic drone with thermographic sensors?  In this case the human can't see the thermographic visual range and he can't read it from the robotic drone's "mind" either.    I can't help but feel that in this instance the human magician would be visible to the drone.    The spell lacks a viable subject to use for editting the thermographic light.

Now how about a situation where the magician casts a physical invisibility spell on a friend's drone.    Then while the magician sits back and concentrates on sustaining the spell the drone travels into an enemy facility and sneaks past some automated security cameras?

Excuse me a moment....

*puts on hermetic labcoat and lecture hall glasses*

"Assuming we accept the Perceptual Continuity theory of illusary spells, we are left with an interesting complication: that of physical illusions and their interaction with nonliving entities. The Physical Invisability illusion serves as an excellent example."

*Que recording, of a mage casting a spell and disappearing from view.*

"This video was recorded from a drone sensor grid. Those of you with high-quality AR overlays will note that even the partial 3D views give no sign that the subject of the illusion is still standing right where he was when the illusion was first produced. Even a full spectroscopic analysis, which such a high-quality security drone calculates every few seconds to foil technological cloaking techniques such as adaptive ruthenium, are unable to detect the ruse. Note, however, that the ultrasound map hyperimposed on the same field of view *does* detect the mage, so don't think it's a foolproof disguise.

"As you should all remember from before the first midterm-" *widespread groans* "-Physical Manipulation theory would suggest that light is actually 'bent' or 'warped' either around or through the subject. Since the subject does not interact with the photons themselves, he is effectively invisible to any visual means of detecting him. But, as you should all remember, there are complications with this theory, for example the fact that the subject can still see, which tells us that at least some photons must be getting through, at least to the man's eyeballs.

"Continuity theory, on the other hand, tells us that the time the light is being manipulated is not when it is interacting with the subject, but rather when it is interacting with the would-be detector, in this case the drone. This clears up the various problems involving light interaction with the subject perfectly; *he* is perfectly normal, aside from the obvious complication of being invisible." *laughter*

"In a way, though, we've just traded one set of problems for another. Now instead of the subject having special problems associated with being unaffected by light, we now have problems associated with an unintelligent observer viewing a concealed subject. In other words, how does the drone 'know' what it 'should' be seeing? Well, the tongue-in-cheek answer is that the world conspires to give it the image it needs.

"To explain how and why this works, let's look again at how Continuity Theory defines the mana gestalt, or 'aura' as laymen describe it. As any of the naturally gifted among you know--or those who actually do your homework should be aware--there is an inherent self-organizing principle to mana that follows more-or-less similar lines to that of the human mind. You don't normally think of me as a bunch of individual cells, but as a single human organism. You think of 'a drone' rather than a myriad assortment of seperate parts. And so on. And so does mana. This self-organizing principle is why you are able to affect an entire human being, plus the clothing he is wearing and in many cases extraneus objects he is wearing as if they are all one single being: in the mana's 'perspective' it all is one single being. Further, the fact that an astrally sensetive being can 'see' another grouping's aura indicates that there is some sort of connection, however weak or transient, between them.

"The explainnation for how an illusion spell works carries from this idea. According to this theory, it is the self-organizing principle of mana then responds to the illusion, creating a perspective in which the subject is invisible. Note that this is not even a conscious or intelligent process, but rather the effect of mana operating on the physical world. This explains why the Physical Invisability spell and Mana Invisability spell are so similar conceptually; they're essentially the same spell, only the physical version must do more 'work' to integrate observers like cameras and drones which have a weaker connection to mana than living creatures.

"In light of this theory, several possible spell mechanisms can be deduced...."

Technobabbly enough for you? biggrin.gif
Eyeless Blond
The real problem with what we're doing here is that we have to come up with the mechanism *and* how it actually works, all at the same time because the rules themselves are too ambiguous (or, in worse cases, self-contradictory) to tell us how everything should work. If we had reliable rules, we could perform experiments and case studies and use those to formulate working theories, much as scientists do, but obviously we can't.

Take this example, for instance.
QUOTE (Edward)
And what about the invisible cover on a light trick. Using the invisibility (not improved) on an opaque “lenses” at force 1 but choosing not to resist the spell yourself. Now you cant see the cover, and thus the light spills out and illuminates your surroundings. Your enemies however resist the illusion (because they don’t know to deliberately permit it) now you have a light nobody outside of your team can see buy.


Now, the way my theory works would give another answer. Obviously the cover is opaque, so no light is getting out to the observer's eyes. As such, under my theory the person who *failed* to resist the invisability spell would "see" inside the flashlight exactly what he expected to see: a flashlight bulb. But the flashlight is still not providing any light, because the opaque cover is still blocking the light. So, the person who fails the check will either "see" a flashlight that is not providing any light (eg. off), or "see" a flashlight that is "on" but *still* not providing any light.
Cold-Dragon
Ah, but in your theory, he could also see the lightbulb, albeit in a style he's aware of, even if that's not what the bulb really looks like, yes?

Granted, if he does know the shape of the lightbulb for that style flashlight, then that's what gets put in, but on the offchance our would be perceiver is a dunce with flashlights, he's using assumptions to fill in the blanks?
Edward
Eyeless Blond

Buy your theory of the flashlight cover if I expected the light to be on I would see it as being on if I looked directly into it I would even suffer glare penalties(perversely I would see this even if the bulb was blown or the batteries flat, just so long as I did not expect that)

Now when I, having observed that the light is on, direct it away from me I am 100% convinced that I will illuminate the surrounding aria. What do I see, what is there, what I expect to see around me or darkness.

Your system allows the annoying ability to hide behind an invisible object, this is not usually something GMs want to allow.

Edward
Vaevictis
Guys, it's f*cking magic. Trying to determine the physics of magic is pointless.

I think the correct answer is that you can't see the flashlight as the *source* of the light because it's invisible, but you *can* see the light reflecting off of other things, rather like you can't see the dude opening the door, but you CAN see the door opening.
Serbitar
The problem is: This is Shadowrun, not a fantasy game. Magic is researched and you can test everything. So the GM needs an explanation besides "Its fucking magic, you know?" when a laser is shooting at an invisible person. Will he take damage or not?

I personally would do the following (when I had to make a consistent rule set):

Make all physical Illlusion spells, physical manipulation spells.
Let the "victim" of the iinvisibility send out an anti phase correlated photon field. Everything he emmits will be phased to zero, everything he absorbs will be projected on the other side. No overheat problem (quantum mechanically, the energy goes to infinity). He will be able to see, but will not be able to emmit anything (including Communications and normal light), he would be hurt by lasers.
hobgoblin
simple solution for my personl games:

when someone or somthing looks at a person coverd with improved invisibility, said spell mess with their optical system so that the person appears to not be there. simple, even if it flys in the face of the RAW...

then a laser can hit a person under the spell and all that...
Austere Emancipator
hobgoblin: I knew you were still secretly in love with SR3!
Serbitar
Btw: Why is everybody against this laser thing? I lide the idea of a person not to be able to get hi by a laser. My Problem witht his solution si more that this person would not be able to see anything . . .
hobgoblin
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Jun 3 2006, 06:48 PM)
hobgoblin: I knew you were still secretly in love with SR3!

heh, its still the version that i have most books for.

but i kinda like how the dice system in SR4 is more uniform and less involved.

then there is the new matrix.

basicly i love or favor neither, both have their ups and downs. basicly its just another rpg rules system...

the setting however, that i love. its the most interesting one have encounterd. and oh so "human". there is a reason why i love the cyberpunk/transhumanism settings. the big guys are there in the background, but rarely do you talk to them directly. there will allways be layers upon layers of go-betweens. and by the end of the day your just another number on the expense sheet to them.

QUOTE (Serbitar)
Btw: Why is everybody against this laser thing? I lide the idea of a person not to be able to get hi by a laser. My Problem witht his solution si more that this person would not be able to see anything . . .


maybe because its a illusion spell, not a physical manipulation spell?

in what other game did a illusion spell make you 100% untouchable to a specific kind of attack, or any attack for that matter?
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (Edward)
Buy your theory of the flashlight cover if I expected the light to be on I would see it as being on if I looked directly into it I would even suffer glare penalties(perversely I would see this even if the bulb was blown or the batteries flat, just so long as I did not expect that)

Er, actually my theory says that, assuming you knew there was a flashlight behind the invisible cover in the first place, you'd 'see' a flashlight bulb that was not generating any light. That is, off. It doesn't matter whether the flashlight bulb itself is actually on or not; you can't see it generating light, therefore it's not generating light. An opaque cover's not going to suddenly start glaring in your face; that'd be ridiculous.

QUOTE
Now when I, having observed that the light is on, direct it away from me I am 100% convinced that I will illuminate the surrounding aria. What do I see, what is there, what I expect to see around me or darkness.

The invisible cover doesn't grant you darkvision either; a dark room will still be dark when you shine a completely covered flashlight into it, whether you can see the cover or not. Note that you *can* figure out that the cover is on the flashlight by flicking it on and off and noticing the lack of light and assuming the flashlight isn't broken. You wouldn't be able to *see* the cover, but you'd know it's there.

As I said before, transparent to the eye, not the mind.

QUOTE
Your system allows the annoying ability to hide behind an invisible object, this is not usually something GMs want to allow.

What's wrong with hiding behind an invisible object? There's nothing in the rules about the subject becoming transparent. In fact what it says is:
QUOTE
Attacks against invisible targets suffer the Target Hidden
modifier (p. 141) if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise
sense the subject of the spell.

Essentially the subject of the spell is Hidden, even if he/she/it's right in plain sight. He's Not There; Gone; Somebody Else's Problem (SEP) biggrin.gif
-X-
What are the problems involved with assuming that the spell creates a sphere around you with properties similar to a two-way mirror (as was mentioned before) but instead of reflecting as a mirror it casts a reflection of the opposite side? This seems to solve all of the problems mentioned here.

The person would be able to see out because some light would be coming in.

People wouldn't be able to see in because they'd be looking at a reflection of what is on the other side of the bubble.

Some perceptive folks would notice a darker area (since not all the light is being perfectly reflected) where the sphere is an once clued in they'd be able to see the person supposedly hiding inside. (Okay, that might not be totally realistic, but then I run Physical Invisibility as though it was an extremely good Ruthenium suit.)

You could see through an invisible wall exactly as if it was a thin pane of glass.

If an invisible person turned on a flashlight, the flashlight wouldn't be visible but some of the light would come through the invisibility effect and it would probably make it that much easier for people to see through the illusion.

Finally, if you shot a laser at someone using Improved Invisibility some of the laser would hit the person, but the force of the spell would act as armor protecting the target from the laser's damage.

This interpretation of the spell seems to cause the least amount of physics fudging and less rules abuse potential. (You have to pretend that distortion is somehow nullified by 'magic', as would the significant contrast between the darker area created by however much light 'leaks' in to the mage.)
Tarantula
QUOTE (Serbitar)
The problem is: This is Shadowrun, not a fantasy game. Magic is researched and you can test everything. So the GM needs an explanation besides "Its fucking magic, you know?" when a laser is shooting at an invisible person. Will he take damage or not?

Just an example... we have a troll, a mage, and a guy with a laser.

T...M.........................L

Easy enough. Guy with laser shoots at the troll he sees, mage has an invisibility (not improved) spell on. Assume no one make their resist checks. Guy sees laser hit troll. Troll sees laser hit troll. Mage sees laser hit troll. Troll smells burnt mage. Mage takes damage.

Ok, now this case, the mage has improved invisibility up. Guy with laser shoots at the troll he sees. Guy sees laser hit troll. Troll sees laser hit troll. Mage sees laser hit troll. Mage smells burnt troll. Troll takes damage.

Why? Because of that damnable passage that says that the improved invisibility spell in 4th ed bend light, and a laser is merely concentrated light.
Cold-Dragon
Wasn't the actual damage by a laser done by the heat and radiation of all that focused light (or something like that?)

I don't recall it being purely the light itself that actually did the damage.
Tarantula
Sure, but the light is bent around the mage, and then focused on the troll, why? Because it says it bends light.

This brings up a good point though... if it is bending the thermographic light, does that mean the mage could walk through a fire with improved invis up since it would be bending the thermographic heat from the fire away from them? I will admit I don't know much about the difference between temperature and radiated thermographic light, and in fact, I'm gonna go read up on that now.
Cold-Dragon
That was part of what I was trying with my system - not to divert lasers and fires (though the fire one is new, heh). The spell can only affect so much, and I don't neccessarily call the beam of a laser an object, so if it can't be affected by the spell...who's to say that, while the beam may seem to 'pass through' it doesn't zap the mage in the process.

Especially if you use my theory of winding the light through the person or object. If the spell did that, the heat and everything would still hit. If anything it might do more damage that way (but I'd settle for the regular damage).
Tarantula
The example doesn't break with the edits light after its hit the mage theory.

Imp invis spell. Guy shoot at troll. Guy sees laser hit troll, troll sees laser hit troll, troll smells burnt mage, mage takes damage.

Explanation: The laser goes, and actually does hit the mage, however since no one resisted the spell, after the laser has hit the mage the spell then edits this emitting light to show that there was no mage, and the laser passed through to the troll. The light actually hit the mage (this also lets the mage see things) and everyone saw the laser hit the troll, even though the mage took the damage. The troll can smell cooked mage, and the guy with the laser shits himself as he thinks the troll just got hit with his newest toy and didn't even notice.
Edward
Detailed rules about what illusions do are needed.

Fluff about how they do them is not. You can always say “magical theoreticians are debating this in the highest circles of academia” anytime a player asks why or how magic works. That is my usual response when asked about such things.

QUOTE ( Eyeless Blond)

QUOTE (Edward)
Buy your theory of the flashlight cover if I expected the light to be on I would see it as being on if I looked directly into it I would even suffer glare penalties(perversely I would see this even if the bulb was blown or the batteries flat, just so long as I did not expect that)

Er, actually my theory says that, assuming you knew there was a flashlight behind the invisible cover in the first place, you'd 'see' a flashlight bulb that was not generating any light. That is, off. It doesn't matter whether the flashlight bulb itself is actually on or not; you can't see it generating light, therefore it's not generating light. An opaque cover's not going to suddenly start glaring in your face; that'd be ridiculous.


if I expect the light to be on (say because I was the one that turned it on) and I see what I expect to see (as you said you would rule) then I will see the light as being on



QUOTE
Your system allows the annoying ability to hide behind an invisible object, this is not usually something GMs want to allow.

What's wrong with hiding behind an invisible object? There's nothing in the rules about the subject becoming transparent. In fact what it says is:
QUOTE
Attacks against invisible targets suffer the Target Hidden
modifier (p. 141) if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise
sense the subject of the spell.

Essentially the subject of the spell is Hidden, even if he/she/it's right in plain sight. He's Not There; Gone; Somebody Else's Problem (SEP) biggrin.gif

Its not the subject of the invisibility spell I was getting at, it was the person behind the subject.

For example. I was to have 3 people move in tight formation up to an observer. If the people are invisible then they will not be able to move in formation so I give them very big shields (big enough to hide behind completely) which I cast invisibility on. The observer sees what he expects to se behind the shields, witch is nothing. The people holding the shields can see each other and move up in tight formation unobserved.

Edward
Tarantula
Only if they're sliding the shields along the floor, or are levitating.
Dissonance
... How often are you people shooting lasers at invisible people, anyways?
booklord
QUOTE (Dissonance)
... How often are you people shooting lasers at invisible people, anyways?

Almost Never. But I did once have a hallway blocked by a laser grid that would slice and dice anyone who tried to walk through without dealing with the lasers first. And the topic did come up. "If I'm invisible wouldn't the laser just bend around me?"
Serbitar
QUOTE (hobgoblin)
[QUOTE=Austere Emancipator,Jun 3 2006, 06:48 PM]
[QUOTE=Serbitar]Btw: Why is everybody against this laser thing? I lide the idea of a person not to be able to get hi by a laser. My Problem witht his solution si more that this person would not be able to see anything . . .[/QUOTE]

maybe because its a illusion spell, not a physical manipulation spell?

in what other game did a illusion spell make you 100% untouchable to a specific kind of attack, or any attack for that matter?

Thats why hysical illusions spells are not illusion spells but physical manipulations spells. They are mispalced.
knasser
I'm cross-posting a link from the flashlights thread. I know that's not perfect, but I'm not sure why the thread was forked. We've now got two parallel discussions. Anyway, I think I've solved it.

Improved Invisibility - An Explanation.
hobgoblin
nice work on that one...

i wonder why people get so hung up on the warped = bending around subject interpetation...
Eyeless Blond
Because it's not at all analogous to the Mana Invisability spell? Because it's not an Illusion?

Answered.
hobgoblin
i was thinking hung up as if it was the only true way of interpeting the word "warped".

btw, a image floating in thin air, created by lasers, would not that be a illusion?
still, its a illusion based on the propertys of light, and how to use them wink.gif
Eyeless Blond
Oh, heh smile.gif

Well, while I was working on that answer I thought up a major problem for my interpretation as well. It's a gneralization of the covered flashlight problem, and it's a real doozy of a problem for my interpretation, though it also applies to knasser's interpretation as well.

The problem essentially boils down to this: how does invisability handle shadows? Think about it a little bit and you might see the problem. In particular consider:

1) The special case of an Invisible flashlight cover,
2) or of an Invisible troll's shadow:
2a) when he's standing in a brightly-lit, open field, and
2b) when he's completely blocking the light through a doorway into an otherwise unlit room, and
2c) when he's partly blocking the light through a doorway into an otherwise unlit room.

See the problem now?
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (hobgoblin)
btw, a image floating in thin air, created by lasers, would not that be a illusion?
still, its a illusion based on the propertys of light, and how to use them wink.gif

No it wouldn't, at least not in the sense that we're talking. The image would be a genuine false image, in that the photons are real, even if they don't correspond to the physical object that the image implies.

Illusion spells are supposed to be completely false, in that they only exist within the minds of the observers that don't resist the spell. Having Illusion spells genuinely alter photons themselves create a number of problems, illustrated best (IMHO) here.
Nion
QUOTE (Edward)
if I expect the light to be on (say because I was the one that turned it on) and I see what I expect to see (as you said you would rule) then I will see the light as being on

I just had to comment on this one.

There is a huge difference between you seeing what you want to see, and your subconscious mind filling in the spots you have no info about. A perfect example is the blind spot test. (Where you draw a dot on a piece of paper, close one eye, focus on a spot to the left/right of the dot, and move your head closer/farther away. If you do it right, the dot will vanish at a specific distance/angle.) You expect there to be a dot, you know there is a dot, but your mind fills in that area with whatever is around it. In this case, a blank piece of paper.

A more extreme example is migraines (not the part of migraines that is a headache, but the part where parts/most of the eyes blank out like the blind spot). I, being one of those suffering from migraines, can tell you that it's definitely possible to be unaware of something in the middle of your field of view and still not see what is behind it. The brain is pretty good at not admitting it has no idea what is right in front of you.
hobgoblin
thing is tho that imrpoved invisibility allso work on mindless devices...

that is unless the avarage security camera have become way smarter in the 2070's...

still, who is is to say that the spell isnt creating a mini-image, right in front of the sensor picking up the image? that would make it a physical image, and at the same time fool the "mind" nyahnyah.gif

ugh, somtimes is wish that dumpshock had a seperate forum for discussing flawed physics in SR...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012