Probably easy answer - no!

But what I'm looking for thoughts on is this:

Technological devices can't see manifesting beings. Clear.

But tech that you've paid essence for can see them, right? If I've got cybereyes, I'm not blind to manifesting entities, just like a mage with cybereyes isn't unable to cast LOS spells.

But if having paid essence is the key to tech "seeing" manifested entities, how about recording devices that you paid essence for. SR5 cybereyes automatically come with cameras and I presume a wee bit of memory. So can the cybereye that can see the manifested astral form also record it?

I've thought of several possible answers to this - was wondering what others thought....

Thanks.

I'd still say no to using cybereyes.

My impression is that manifesting is psychic based, and the brain just processes it to seem like we're seeing the spirit (assuming one isn't blind). Maybe a simrig could make a viable recording since it actually records what the brain's doing, but I don't know. If a simrig can make a viable (and legal, like for court cases as evidence) recording of what a magician experiences during psychometry, then maybe yes to using it to record a manifest entity.

Yeah I'm with Spellbinder on this. Manifesting is a psychic thing. There isn't really anything there to record.
Now if you could get an astral thing to sit still long enough, 4th ed has mana sensitive film and a camera that can use it. So you could take a photo of an astral being though really it was used to capture astral signatures. No one is going to hang in the astral long enough for the camera to do its thing (took hours to capture 1 image).

Well, I was probably grasping at straws.

Thanks, though.


Not actually trying to get evidence, just study something astral I saw with my cybereyes (but didn't know it was a manifestation at the time) after the fact for clues.

Suppose a plain old-fashioned memory test would work just fine, though.

Cybereyes work -specifically- because Essence has been paid for them. Same reason you can use classic style mirror-based telescopes to extend line of sight as a caster but not a digital scope, because one just bounces light to the caster's eyes and the other does image processing.

The way I've always run it is that manifest astral beings can only be directly perceived by living minds.

I stand with Binary on this matter. You've paid Essence for the cybereyes so they're tied into a living essence. Besides, SpellBinder, if you say that cybereyes can't, why could a simrig? It doesn't read your mind, it's just taking the data being fed to it via your senses and your emotional state.

Which is a psychic thing. The dispute I suppose is whether that psychic thing is put directly into the mind or has to go through some intermediary like (cyber)eyes.

I'd say that's there's actually no dispute about the psychic aspect "going through" (or rather involving) a intermediary system like (cyber-) eyes but rather if it's possible for anything other than an attached "living mind" to "process" (including recording) whatever that psychic thing is.

Manifestations appear to affect two out of the five standard human senses - not surprisingly the two most dominant ones: vision and hearing. As with many things that have to do with Shadowrun Magic the interaction seems to be based on the concept behind those senses rather than hard physics. Otherwise technological implementations of "vision" a.k.a. cameras wouldn't be excluded from perceiving them in the first place. Since "it's magic" obviously doesn't satisfy certain parties you regularly end up with questions like the one at hand.

So what's the "why" behind me favoring a "no" answer to recording a manifestation via cyber eyes?

Instead of using the "paid with essence" approach as the first starting point in order to explain why cyber eyes allow seeing a manifestation I'd rather begin with having a look in the opposite direction and ask: Could a physically blind human being "see" a manifestation? Could such a person still "hear" the manifestation? To me the answers are "No" for the former and "Yes" to the latter. And it's of no importance whether the blindness is caused by a blindfold, a defect on organ level (a.k.a. the eye itself), a neurological defect of the optic nerve or a defect in the visual cortex. Once anything in that sensory chain isn't working properly the visual aspect of the psychic effect can no longer occur while the audio aspect continues to work.

From there on it get's rather easy to explain why cyber eyes still don't allow recording a manifestation: The cyber eyes themselves are not sufficient on their own to perceive a manifestation. The "paid with essence" part merely turns them into adequate conduit replacements that allow a living being to experience the psychic effect of a manifestation. And as far as simrigs are concerned? Well, they are neither part of the sensory chain nor are they themselves an adequate replacement for a "living mind". They might pick up paert of the neural activity associated with perceiving a manifestation but to them it's just a form of "static" ... no meaningful data.

Problem solved ... for me at least.

I could believe that the cybereyes would see something, but nothing useful. Maybe you get a blurring where the spirit is, or a weird artifact in the coloration. Perhaps enough to convince people something is there, but not enough to identify it as a creature vs a glitch in the electronics, and certainly not enough study the aura.

I'm thinking the stories of ghost hunters who say they took a picture of a woman they saw, and only got a white dot in the middle of the picture.

SpellBinder and binarywraith are both right, and wrong - especially because of the other.

Clarification: is this 5th Ed or the vastly-superior 4th Ed we're discussing?

Obviously discuss what you like, but what I'm interested in is SR5.

You have missed one rather important part of that chain: The consciousness itself, which would be located after the visual cortex.

My understanding is that psychic manipulations such as Manifestation directly manipulate the target's consciousness. Recorders inside cybereyes or even a Simrig do not see anything, because they attach somewhere between the cornea and the visual cortex, while the manipulation happens later in the "chain". Blind or deaf targets are an interesting question (and AFAIK never answered officially), IMO you can only trick people into perceiving something they could also perceive normally, so no images for the blind or sounds for the deaf.
Although something akin to blindsight might still occur, so a blind person might still instinctively step aside to avoid running into a manifesting spirit.

~erm~ No, I didn't miss any part of that particular chain, but "my" chain obviosuly differs from your understanding of "yours". I mentioned the conconsciousness as part of the premise: if it's possible for anything other than an attached "living mind" to "process" (including recording) whatever that psychic thing is. and what I clearly referenced again in: Well, they are neither part of the sensory chain nor are they themselves an adequate replacement for a "living mind"

The particular chain I was talking about was the strictly "physical layer" that seems to be a requirement for the subject to be able to perceive the manifestation within his "consciousness" / "living mind". No need to include the latter into te former.



You're now defaulting from how mana-based illusion spells supposedly work. Slightly different cup of tea (and can of worms).

Alright, let me rephrase it: You are differentiating between the "sensory chain" which is affected by magic, and the consciousness which merely processes what that "physical layer" feeds into it. However, both 4th and 5th Ed clearly state that "Mana-based illusion spells affect the mind", therefore this duality seems unwarranted. The remaining question is whether the consciousness is the only factor involved, which would lead to strange results like the blind literally seeing ghosts. Therefore I like the "chain" thing, it just needs to include the mind/consciousness

No, I'm not doing that at all. The "sensory chain" in my description was not affected by the magic effect. My description merely demands that the "sensory chain" is a) present and b) operational => It's a pre-requisite just like the living mind.



Just as 1st to 3rd Ed did but ...



... manifestations still aren't "mana-based illusion spells" and thus - while certainly affecting the mind - might or might not follow the same principle and trying to argue from that angle still is a different cup of tea (as well as a can of worms). So that "duality" or "differentiation" to me is still warranted since these are two separate magic effects.



And my description already solved that "problem", didn't it?



Let's just agree to disagree there. I gave the OP a rationale as to why I'd deny recording of manifestations (not illusion spells!) via cyber-eyes despite the "paid with essence" mantra. And it solves the "problem" to my satisfaction. It can even be expanded to a certain degree unto the "mana-based illusion spells" if need be, but that's still a different discussion to be led elsewhere.

I'm not really seeing where we would disagree, since we arrived at the same conclusion. I merely felt that your shortened "sensory chain" and "psychic aspect 'going through' (or rather involving) a intermediary system") sounded like the illusion happened somewhere between the cornea and visual cortex, if that's not even what you meant all the better, no need to get worked up.


The original Grimoire states that cybereyes and -ears can't perceive mana illusions. I didn't dig into it any deeper to see when that was changed, hence the limit to just 4th and 4th, which definitely have the changed rule.

Indeed, that's what the Grimoire said about how cyber replacements interacted with mana-based illusions. Yet the illusions themselves still affected the mind back then as well ... which created some of the initial magic oddities that seemed not to follow "logic". Some of those oddities were removed with 2nd and 3rd Ed. cleanup and revisions. In 3rd illusion effects were even "clearly" defined as "affecting the mind" (mana versions) and "creating actual sensory input" (physical ones) but the latter caused a disastrous german translation for physical illusions that entered the english product line during 4th Ed, where such spells suddenly bent light around physical objects thus making things e.g. truly invisible instead of creating the illusion of invisibility with the perceiving entity.



Technically the part about affecting the mind never changed. What changed is how cyberware interacted with that ... I'm not sure whether the mana-based illusions not working with cyber replacements was already dropped in 2nd but it was certainly gone in 3rd.

But regardless of that: Manifestation is still not a mana-based illusion and thus doesn't have to abide to the rulings and definitions for those.

I would go a different route entirely...

Since a blind magician (or blind awakened) can still perceive astrally, then there is no reason a blind person (or person with cybereyes) cannot "perceive" a manifestation from the astral.
Same with a Deaf Person and hearing the manifestation.
Organs are not required, just a living mind
Simple and easy, and no need to remember any rules, guidelines, or house rules about whether it is mana based, or whatever.

Certainly another possible approach but I'd question it's validity based on the "wrong" premise and a potentially flawed reversal of how things work in those two cases: Astral perception is indeed described as a different sense (or senses depending on interpretation) and thus unaffected by physical ailments. Manifestations however are rather explicitly linked to the concept of "seeing" and "hearing" with the physical senses while also being a magical effect to the "perceiving" mind.

Another significant difference is the fact that astral perception is performed by the magically active person and the same person is then the recipient of the the resulting preception. With manifestation those roles are split between the magically active person that performs the manifestation and the potentially mundane person that perceives as a consequence.



Simple and easy? A literal equivalent of physically seeing and hearing someone while the associated senses were
physically never developped within the recipient's mind?! Too much of a "it's magic" approach for some I might guess.

The physics of bending light aside, I think this explanation makes much more sense than "you target 237834562378 CCD sensors at once", why the disaster?


It's not explicitly labeled as such, but if it quacks like something for which you have a ruleset, it makes sense to use that ruleset



Being deaf or blind isn't necessarily congenital, and even people born and raised totally deaf are able to hear via cochlear implants (although not necessarily understand spoken language).

My problem with the blind seeing or the deaf hearing illusions is that not that it would be too much handwaving, but that it would make detecting illusions trivial: Close your eyes, if it's still there you are being had.

But It IS MAgic... It is a Psychic Manifestation...
Sure sounds like Magic to me.

Because it's a fundamentally flawed concept on several levels:

1. Bending light is something that by definition of SR magics would fall into the "manipulation" spell category not into the "illusion" category

2. With light actually being bent the spells would actually have the bent photons as spell target(s) and not the person around/onto whom the spell is cast and ...

3. ... given the nature of such a particular change that also calls into question as to why a (living) perceiver has rule wise the right to resist that change.

4. Even if we are to allow spell resistance nonetheless we now face the following problem: In case of a successful resistance a spell's effect is normally cancelled out. With "bent light" that would mean a single person who succesfully resists should technically terminate the whole spell ... which he/she doesn't according to the rules.

5. Finally add thoughts about ramifications for the invisible person that the light is bent around in terms of being able to further see and/or thermal behavior once IR light is also bent in that manner.

The main misconception - as even evidenced in your "you target 237834562378 CCD sensors at once" - players seem to have with illusion spells of that kind (which were called "indirect illusions" during 3rd for good reason) is this:

Those spells have actually two subjects / targets:

A) The person that the spell is cast upon is the spell's target and becomes the center of the spell's effect provided that he/she doesn't resist (and thus destroy) the spell.

B) Any observer becomes subject of the spell's effect just like they would become subject to the burning fire (spell effect) of a sustained fire aura (spell) when touching the latter. The spell's effect in turn is what - with the original description - creates false sensory input within the sensory organs of that observer and the observer get's to defend against that fake sensory input within his own system. Even if he/she succeeds at defending against the spell's effect he simply won't affect the spell itself that still resides on the person that the spell was cast upon. It just no longer affects that particular observer.



It would if it weren't for some "minor" details: a mana-based illusion spell is explicitly precluded from doing something that manifestations do ... the latter cross the planar borders between astral space and the physical world and they certainly do not cause drain as a result of the manipulation of mana within the perceiving entity. So - at least to me - manifestations are far from "quacking" like a mana-based illusion.




Certainly not and I didn't claim otherwise. But congential blind- and deafness are what's also encompassed by the respective "flaws" / "negative traits".



And it takes them quite some time to make use of the information that such an implant provides. I've met more than a small number of players that have already a hard time when dealing with language barriers while their characters physically communicate with spirits (and vice versa) or a manifesting magician successfully communicating with a person not of their own language. So I simply don't see them too keen about manifestations provding an integrated perfect "translation" spell and a "you never learned to interpret such a sensation but I can instantly provide you with that" spell as a bonus. Again a matter of "too much it's magic" ... particularly with virtually no cost associated.



That's another bad ramification and thus yet another reason as to why I wouldn't call the solution either "simple" or "easy".

__________________________________




I don't remember calling into question that "it's magic". I seem to recall questioning the alleged "ease" and "simplicity" of that approach and then saying that it might also be "too much" of "it's magic" for certain tastes.

Hey, yeah but even in SR3 you can get funny outcomes. Like guy one looks on the camera and sees the "invisible" person because he defeats the spell. Bam - he sees the person.

2nd Person watching the film, cannot see it.... Also what happens when the spell is dropped? will the person be visible then on the camera afterwards? What if the camera feed was stored digitally, does the spell work while sustained, not at all or forever?

Questions over questions and it makes no sense

It probably would be better that the camera has to make a sensor check and if it fails / succeeds its processing the feed at this time accordingly....

First of all that would be no problem that's restricted to SR3 and second: There's actually no basis for a spell resistance test when looking at camera footage for either person 1 or person 2 in your description. A physical illusion would create false sensory input within the recording camera. A camera on its own doesn't get any form of spell resistance and thus no matter how the camera footage is accessed (live via screen or later from storage) that footage would only contain the falsified information. There's simply no propagation of resistance tests beyond the first point of alteration - here a camera.



Those are actually no problems at all: At the time of the recording the physical spell altered what the camera recorded and that change is permanent and unrelated to the nature of the spell being a sustained one. Otherwise you could alter your example like this: A guard passes a person under either form of invisibility spell and fails to resists and thus doesn't see the other person. Does the guard suddenly remember seeing the person once the spell is dropped?



You're creating your own problems there and not necessarily based on the rules or spell descriptions.



One of the established principles in SR magic seems to be that only "living" entities do make resistance test while "non-living" entities are always beaten once the spell fulfills the requirements ... be it in form of success thresholds or force vs. object rating comparisons.

A fireball creates a fire at the target location. Spreading damaging effects from there on out is not magic but heat transfer. A manifestation on the other hand would create what exactly at the target point?



Yeah, the particularities of "casting" it differ, but I think it would be very unlikely both IC and OOC to have two different designs for accomplishing the same task (getting people to see something that isn't there).


That was more a general comment about the idea that the visual or auditory cortex atrophy like an unused muscle when not used, or get used as an extra core by other brain functions. Both ideas may seem plausible, but as usual, the brain is more complex than that.

Fireball ... a manipulation spell. An instantanious one for that matter. So it's not necessarily the best comparison with regards to what you quoted me on. To make things worse: Originally the caster created a ball of magical fire from mana in the vicinity of his hand, then threw it at his aiming point (withouts scatter) and once the ball was there it exploded like a grenade (explicitly calling for ranged damage attack rules). While some aspects of that process do share simularities to what I described as being the original definition of how Illusion spells worked with regards to primary subject of the spell (a.k.a target) and secondary subjects to the spell's effect, mechanically there are difference that make it too different in order to be of use. And to be honest, I'm not quite seeing where your comment would be taking you with regards to lightbending as a "more logical" spell description that you initially contempleted after I mentioned it.

Your comment seems to try to go back to your idea of a manifestation being something like a mana-based illusion and totally unrelated to the aspects I was talking about in that particular comment you just quoted.



So?



Nothing comparable ... as it isn't an instantanious manipulation nor an illusion spell and it most certainly wouldn't bend light



"Unlikely"? Given the described differences I would say that those differences in design do exist already and I'm certainly not going into a debate whether or not such difference should exist, because that is more a matter of preference / taste than anything else. Oh and for the record: It's quite common that the same task can be accomplished by different but vagely similar design (even in our real world).For example: The whole setup of SR magic within the area of spell casting pretty much always allowed you to "create" a spell within a certain non-manipualtion spell category and then again as a manipulation spell ... and then Adept powers mimik spell effects (or the other way round - depending on perspective) while being something else by design both IC and OOC. So there's enough room for other uses of magic sharing certain things with spell casting and still being "something else".