ubi.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Haze  Hop To Forums  Haze    Nectar isn't a Hallucinogen
Page 1 2 

Moderators: deded999, zgubilici
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Posted
...A Hallucinogen makes you see something that isn't there... Nectar makes you NOT see something that IS there... I tried to look up what you would call something like that and I couldn't find anything that matched in the medical world, so I coined a name for a substance with such properties:

Nectar is a Venenumcreocaecus or V.C.C., if you will (say it a few times and it starts to roll off of the tongue).

Venenum = Drug
Creo = Make
Caeucus = Blind.

Am I wrong, or Did I look at the demo a little too hard? Big Grin
 
Posts: 49 | Location: right here.... here. | Registered: Sun March 02 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Rokashi
Posted Hide Post
LOL you lost me at hallucinogen.


"If games make you violent, does monopoly make you a millionaire?" - ???
 
Posts: 1016 | Registered: Mon November 19 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rokashi:
LOL you lost me at hallucinogen.


LOL
 
Posts: 49 | Location: right here.... here. | Registered: Sun March 02 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of TheWarHam
Posted Hide Post
Well actually a hallucinogen is by definition "Something that induces hallucinations." So I then looked up hallucination and found
---
a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
---

The experience of not seeing dead bodies does not exist outside of the mind, correct? And of course seeing giant orange outlines of people is obviously undebatably a hallucination.


-----------
Indeedly
 
Posts: 407 | Location: Hell, New Jersey | Registered: Fri March 21 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
I swear i saw a unicorn with an elf on it in the demo. Man, I gotta lay off the Nectar for a while.


 
Posts: 39 | Registered: Tue June 19 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
A hallucinogen is something that messes with the sense of sight and also messes with your brain.

So it would be classified as a hallucinogen
 
Posts: 39 | Registered: Sun April 13 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheWarHam:
Well actually a hallucinogen is by definition "Something that induces hallucinations." So I then looked up hallucination and found
---
a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
---

The experience of not seeing dead bodies does not exist outside of the mind, correct? And of course seeing giant orange outlines of people is obviously undebatably a hallucination.


I thought about the definition before I posted, and in the one you posted exposed the fatal flaw that I saw earlier: something that exists outside of the mind; seeing nothing outside of the mind cancels it as a hallucination. If there was no building in an area, and I saw a building, that would be an hallucination; but I there was a building and I didn't see it, that's not something I experience, that's something I don't experience.

Also, if someone ran a stop sign and hit your car because they didn't see it, if you went to court and argued that the person didn't see something because they were hallucinating, one might object to inquire as to what the accused person saw or saw in the place of the stop sign ; if nothing was in it's place, it could not have been experienced.

In my earlier research, I read a quote that I wish to share right here, There's more on answers.com, but it backs up my point quite well:

quote:
Illusion is an error experienced by someone who is misled (illudere) by the nature of evidence or the seductive appearance of something that deceives. The deceiver may be personified (Descartes's "evil genius") or limited to a physical or physiological cause (the illusions of the senses), or even an ontological structure (the Platonic myth of the cave). However, the subject can create his own illusion by taking his desires for reality. It is this last formulation that is embodied in the Freudian approach to illusion, defined as a belief primarily motivated by the realization of a desire. To that extent the illusion has much in common with dreams and dreaming, where the philosophers of antiquity had situated it.

The concept of illusion in Freud is gradually developed, reaching its culmination in The Future of an Illusion (1927c). In the Project for a Scientific Psychology (1950c [1895]), illusion is confused with hallucination in the context of perceptual illusion. But with the Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901b), the concept is further refined. In Freud's case it would be wrong to qualify the feeling of déjà vu or déjà éprouvé as illusion, because they correspond, through displacement and concealment, to an authentic unconscious daydream. Thirty-five years later in "A Disturbance of Memory on the Acropolis," Freud would refer to false recognition (déjà vu, déjà raconté) as a part of the "illusions in which we seek to accept something as belonging to our ego, just as in the derealizations we are anxious to keep something out of us" (1936a, p. 245).

There is a certain amount of ambiguity concerning the simple criterion that defines illusion as something that doesn't exist in reality, to the extent that the concept of reality is reconsidered in psychoanalysis as mental reality. Moreover, the single stable criterion used to define illusion in psychoanalysis is a belief motivated by the realization of desire: "[W]e will call a belief an illusion when a wish-fulfilment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification" (1927c, p. 31).

Freud identifies illusion as being mostly associated with religion, art, and philosophy, but he also acknowledges the hypothesis that science itself could be an illusion, although he rejects it. In a deeper sense the greatest illusion would be the belief in the happiness and goodness of human nature. This pessimism, or realism, is first associated with the illusion that lasting sexual satisfaction is possible ("'Civilized' Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness," 1908d) and that social rules should be modified to procure happiness for individuals. Freud then assumes the position of a defender of a realist position, which includes negativity instead of ignoring it: "Because we destroy illusion we are accused of endangering ideals" (1910d, p. 147). In fact the only ideal he defends is that of truth. He further distinguishes two types of illusions: those that are not harmful since the illusion is obvious, and those that are dangerous because they take the place of an objective apprehension of reality (philosophy, ideology, and especially religion).

To the first category belongs art, which is said to evolve from magic and which, as an artistic illusion, produces the same affective effects as if it involved something real (1912-1913a). "Art is said to be almost always harmless and beneficent; it does not seek to be anything but an illusion." (1933a [1932], p. 160). In what sense is art an illusion? Freud is forced to make use of the concept of reality to determine this. "The substitutive satisfactions, as offered by art, are illusions in contrast with reality, but they are none the less psychically effective, thanks to the role which phantasy has assumed in mental life" (1930a [1929], p. 75). Illusion, and especially the ability to take pleasure in it, would therefore be the result of the magical omnipotence associated with the beginnings of mental life, which led to the separation of the life of the imagination from the mental life grafted to reality, "At the time when the development of the sense of reality took place, this region [imagination] was expressly exempted from the demands of reality-testing and was set apart for the purpose of fulfilling wishes which were difficult to carry out" (1930a [1929], p. 80).

But reality-testing is difficult to manage when defining illusion. Freud emphasizes it when he distinguishes illusion from delusion: "Illusions need not necessarily be false—that is to say, unrealizable or in contradiction to reality" (1927c, p. 31). The example chosen (the illusion of a young woman of modest means of being able to marry a prince) is not convincing, because within the framework of * erotomaniacal delusion, (erotomaniacal delsusion--e.g. a Monica Lewinski wannabe) that same idea (not illusory since it is realizable, Freud says) would indeed appear to contradict reality. We could therefore say that delusion has more to do with a difference in "temporality"—hope and expectation in one case, real certainty on the other.

The difference between the potential reality of the content of the illusion and the belief in its actual reality is what allows reality testing to be used to define the illusion. Illusion primarily involves the Weltanschauung and, in this regard, Freud emphasized religious illusion. All religious doctrines are "illusions and insusceptible of proof. No one can be compelled to think them true, to believe in them" (1927c, p. 31). The desire they realize is that of being protected and loved by a father who is more powerful than the real father. Infantile distress is the origin of religious need, which Freud criticizes because of the weight it places on education. He also feels—and this may sound paradoxical—that it is necessary to maintain religious teaching as a basis of education and human life in common. "If you want to expel religion from our European civilization, you can only do it by means of another system of doctrines; and such a system would from the outset take over all the psychological characteristics of religion—the same sanctity, rigidity and intolerance, the same prohibition of thought—for its own defense" (p. 51). In other words even if for Freud religion is a "serious enemy" of science, it would be an illusion to believe that it is possible to renounce belief for the benefit of knowledge alone.

The philosophical illusion that believes it can deliver an image of the world that is coherent and without gaps is undermined by the progress of science; and political illusion, such as communism, is an example of a substitute for religion. The struggle against illusion is therefore a battle that will only yield incomplete results, following a process of maturation that is never realized: "Since we are prepared to renounce a good part of our infantile wishes, we can bear it if a few of our expectations turn out to be illusions" (1927c, p. 54).


Still, if you want to give the drug a simpler or more "apt" name by reason of definition, an Illucinogen could work in the place of the name I gave it, but meh; that sounded too contrived, so I made up my own word. Big Grin
 
Posts: 49 | Location: right here.... here. | Registered: Sun March 02 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by moronic_badger:
A hallucinogen is something that messes with the sense of sight and also messes with your brain.

So it would be classified as a hallucinogen


Please see the post above... Big Grin
 
Posts: 49 | Location: right here.... here. | Registered: Sun March 02 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Without going into stories from my college days, hallucinogens cause you see, think, and feel all sorts of things that are both real and not real.
 
Posts: 8 | Registered: Mon May 12 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Chubbaluphigous:
Without going into stories from my college days, hallucinogens cause you see, think, and feel all sorts of things that are both real and not real.


heh, I think i missed out on something when I declined all of those frat parties...
 
Posts: 49 | Location: right here.... here. | Registered: Sun March 02 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Moderator
Picture of deded999
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by pixelsword:
I thought about the definition before I posted, and in the one you posted exposed the fatal flaw that I saw earlier: something that exists outside of the mind; seeing nothing outside of the mind cancels it as a hallucination.


Well it depends on a few things. Webster's definition give Hallucination as:

"1 a: perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b: the object so perceived2: an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion"

and illusion as:

"(1): the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2): an instance of such deception2 a (1): a misleading image presented to the vision (2): something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1): perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2): hallucination 1"

Parts of 'illusion' certainly match with the effects of Nectar, (although the effect is sensual rather than intellectual), but other parts don't.

I feel your building analogy is somewhat flawed: if you see a building one minute and then the next it's gone, you don't see nothing, you see the space where the building was. Without knowing the building was there in the first place, it's lack of existence means nothing, and although the physical space is not an object as such, it's still a physical reality, not a nothing. And let's not forget that video has shown that later in the game bodies appear which can be seen by the troopers, but they are seen as other objects, (clothes, baggage, etc).

Your bolded quote re: illusion is also interesting:

quote:
Moreover, the single stable criterion used to define illusion in psychoanalysis is a belief motivated by the realization of desire: "[W]e will call a belief an illusion when a wish-fulfilment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification" (1927c, p. 31).


Personally I would say that this root of desire is not applicable to the troopers on Nectar because they are not in control of the 'visions' and are not even aware of it, so it cannot be as a result of their own desire, which knocks a hole in the illusion argument for me, at least from the psychanalyisis angle anyway.

In some ways your 'Illucinogen' is the best overall solution, Wink However, since one or the other word should really be appropriate, and since illucinogen is not an actual word, I think when it comes to popular usage and understanding of the terms, illusion would be used to refer to viewing something that appears a certain way but is in actual fact not, while hallucination would refer to the same effect, but due to a different cause, ie. induced by a drug or medication. For this reason I would personally use hallucination for the effects of Nectar, but you do have an interesting point.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: deded999,



Haze FAQ - please check first if you have a question about Haze.
 
Posts: 2116 | Registered: Wed May 10 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Yeah, I'd have to agree with Chubbaluphagus...without divulging too much, I've both seen things that weren't there, and not seen things that were there... Wink


Morne
 
Posts: 1133 | Registered: Mon June 25 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by deded999:

Well it depends on a few things. Webster's definition give Hallucination as:

"1 a: perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b: the object so perceived2: an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion"

and illusion as:

"(1): the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2): an instance of such deception2 a (1): a misleading image presented to the vision (2): something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1): perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2): hallucination 1"

Parts of 'illusion' certainly match with the effects of Nectar, (although the effect is sensual rather than intellectual), but other parts don't.


That's the insidious nature of Nectar (and why it's a difficult concept to define in general): nectar isn't just a drug; Nectar is a part of corporate philosophy which one would accept, which qualifies as Intellectual. There's several aspects to Nectar to which I cannot put it into the realm of hallucination.

Okay: here's what I mean:

--Nectar, when used properly, never has one shooting at hallucinations, but one does shoot at illusions... and then one doesn't shoot at illusions. Every organic target one shoots at one intends to shoot at; moreover one wants to shoot them and one can differentiate between them and, let's say, a swaying sapling. Never is one confused into shooting at stop signs, or cows, or shopping carts (except those evil ones with the funky wheel).

A hallucination, in it's widest or narrowest sense, would be something that basically ISN'T there to begin with; the definition stated:

perception of objects with no reality

So irregardless if one wants to shoot a hallucination, one will never hit an hallucination because one can't hit what's not there... One can't hit it's reality counterpart, because there is none: one cannot ever hit what one was aiming for if it's a hallucination; on top of that, one may not know a hallucination never was there to begin with. THIS is why I'm stoked about HAZE... it's psychological implications are very complex and intriguing!

For one to consciously shoot a body and have it disappear into nothingness (or in some cases, turn into clothing, as deded stated) one would have to consciously accept the fact that the person one just shot disappeared, and that it's gone. That is an illusion: you have to, on some level, buy into the lie consciously.


quote:
Originally posted by deded999:

Your bolded quote re: illusion is also interesting:

quote:
Moreover, the single stable criterion used to define illusion in psychoanalysis is a belief motivated by the realization of desire: "[W]e will call a belief an illusion when a wish-fulfilment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification" (1927c, p. 31).


Personally I would say that this root of desire is not applicable to the troopers on Nectar because they are not in control of the 'visions' and are not even aware of it, so it cannot be as a result of their own desire, which knocks a hole in the illusion argument for me, at least from the psychanalyisis angle anyway.


Here's another facet of Nectar that makes Mantel very cunning, and what drives the desire of the Mantel Trooper into wanting to shoot the targets, as stated in the partial article posted earlier:

quote:
wish-fulfilment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification


Okay, what's the Mantel Trooper's wish-fulfillment? to fight the good fight!

That is also Key (and where I have to go into theory as I don't know the story): The Protagonist in HAZE sees himself indebted to Mantel for saving him... moreover, in doing good, he by his own self-definition, is vanquishing evil. He, by action is expressing what he believes he is (wish-fulfillment), does not see his actions as wrong, he is not hurting anyone that doesn't deserve it, and he sees himself as helping others. By seeing a person bleeding to death and crying, especially piles of 'em, invalidates his reasoning, as well as the corporate vision he accepts as truth; thereby him shrugging-off the fact that several people he shot just basically dematerialized before him assists in his idealistic vision.

The other definition of illusion (although with much debate) perhaps lends another spin on what nectar does in relation to a live or dead person:

quote:
perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature


If one were to be objectively looking for a soldier to eliminate, when one perceives the soldier as dead, he disappears. I believe it's his state of living of dying which would also qualify it as an illusion.

It could also be argued that the object itself would have to exist in such a way, but the key I believe would be it's objective perception.

Maybe I shouldn't write these things only having less than a few hours of sleep, so either I'll wake-up and be embarrassed, or wonder who's butt I pulled this out of. Big Grin
 
Posts: 49 | Location: right here.... here. | Registered: Sun March 02 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of TheWarHam
Posted Hide Post
How about you see sky instead of a building, you see dirt instead of a dead body.


-----------
Indeedly
 
Posts: 407 | Location: Hell, New Jersey | Registered: Fri March 21 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Unless I'm mistaken, hallucinations are broadly grouped into two categories: positive and negative.

Positive hallucinations are things that do not exist in reality, but are perceived by the subject.

Negative hallucinations are things that are not being perceived by the subject. In this case, the bodies of the Promise Hand soldiers.

This is what I can remember from my semester in Abnormal Psychology, so my memory might be faulty on this.

-Aaron, wonders if he'll be recognized
 
Posts: 24 | Registered: Sun March 28 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Moderator
Picture of deded999
Posted Hide Post
I'll have to get back to this one - it could be an epic!



Haze FAQ - please check first if you have a question about Haze.
 
Posts: 2116 | Registered: Wed May 10 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
I never thought I'd see $5 of fun get totally nerded up in such a way.
 
Posts: 8 | Registered: Mon May 12 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of TheWarHam
Posted Hide Post
$5?


-----------
Indeedly
 
Posts: 407 | Location: Hell, New Jersey | Registered: Fri March 21 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
The drug is a concoction. Nectar makes you physically stronger and faster, as well as inducing hallucination or distortion of vision.

It would be classed as both a Stimulant and a Hallucinogen, and possibly both Depressant and Anti-depressant, as it seems to make you calm yet hyped.
 
Posts: 53 | Registered: Tue February 19 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by borninshadow:
Unless I'm mistaken, hallucinations are broadly grouped into two categories: positive and negative.

Positive hallucinations are things that do not exist in reality, but are perceived by the subject.

Negative hallucinations are things that are not being perceived by the subject. In this case, the bodies of the Promise Hand soldiers.

This is what I can remember from my semester in Abnormal Psychology, so my memory might be faulty on this.

-Aaron, wonders if he'll be recognized


VERY interesting!

That's something I haven't heard before, so I studied up a little (very, so please bear with me as I increase my knowledge on this)

Negative Hallucinations are very closely connected. Hippolyte Bernheim pioneered the defining of the aspects of Negative Hallucinations and coined the term, Freud himself borrowed the concept and expounded on it (which baffles me, because I included researching him before I posted, and I didn't see such a thing).

A successor to Freud named Sándor Ferenczi was the architect in broadening the definition of negative hallucination: he says that negative psychosis is constituted in two phases: the first phase of negative hallucination is a narcissistic protection against the traumatic influx of excitations , while the second phase is the compensatory production of positive hallucinations or delusions.

I would include nectar illusions in the first phase of a negative hallucination, as indeed I believe it is part ego, and part nectar that is causing the sequence of events up until an enemy's death, but I do not see any compensatory production of positive delusions... BUT the definition of a negative hallucination in itself includes disappearing, so I believe it is valid.

Furthermore, the work of André Green validates negative hallucinations that is concurrent with both nectar use and negative hallucinations.

quote:
In recent work, Green proposed a mechanism for negative hallucination in response to objections that had been raised about the scope of the concept; negative hallucination occurs when there is a convergence of quantities of excitation coming from the interior and the exterior, between a traumatic trace and an actual perception that reactivates it.


so then begs the question:

Could a hallucinogen, by definition of itself and hallucination, cause a negative hallucination, based upon the definition of a negative hallucination?

I think not... not fully!

THAT'S where I think nectar is only doing half of the work, and the other half is the person taking it... Negative hallucinations include an active role of the ego whereas hallucinations do not... also, negative hallucinations according to André Green are triggered internally andexternally... Carpenter does indeed qualify, as he witnessed his mother die as a child... but such systematic and functional illusions defy hallucinations --positive or negative-- themselves... to assist in highlighting and targeting what they are about to deny after they shoot it...

Like I said, I really need to study this aspect of psychiatry to give a cohesive answer, but Negative hallucinations seem to be closest to what is happening.

For now, I would accept Negative hallucinations as a proper definition of what's going on, although the functionality of it all still has me on the outs of calling the drug an "hallucinogen". (also, I gotta get something to eat)


Big Grin
 
Posts: 49 | Location: right here.... here. | Registered: Sun March 02 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2  
 

ubi.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Haze  Hop To Forums  Haze