Re: [閒聊] 麻瓜的記憶可以被抽取來看或保存嗎?
畢竟是紅遍世界英文小說,要找資料當然是用英文找得多囉!
提供一個找資料的好地方:
Harry Potter 的專屬百科
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
全英文介面,資料非常齊全。
======================================
目前所知Harry 藉由儲思盆所瀏覽的記憶,除了巫師以外,就是家庭小精靈的記憶。
因此究竟能否抽取麻瓜的記憶,我們必須從其他的地方來找線索。
六年級時,
1.Dumbledore在阿茲卡班找到 Morfin Gaunt(Voldemort的舅舅)後,
精熟地使用"Legilimency"(「破心術」),
才費力地抽取出關於Voldemort殺人嫁禍的真相。
2.請Harry去向Slughorn求取真實記憶時,
Dumbledore說因為Slughorn魔力高深又多疑,因此無法強制地抽取記憶。
3.Harry藉由參加俱樂部的機會,說服Slughorn交出相關的記憶。
綜合以上三點,我們可以得到以下推論:
1.記憶的抽取,必須對方自願。
2.只有在對方魔力弱於施術者且精神脆弱時,才可以強制抽取記憶。
另外,書中所被瀏覽的記憶,都屬於具有魔法的生物(巫師、家庭小精靈)。
因此,若假設抽取記憶不需對方具魔力,則理論上是可以抽取麻瓜的記憶的。
至於政策上為何不使用「吐真劑」或「儲思盆」作為訊問的手段,
這是因為二者都能都經由被施術者的意志改變結果。
像是Slughorn在一開始憑著強烈的逃避意志,製造了虛假的記憶;
而吐真劑則可藉由解藥或"Occlumency"(「鎖心術」)與之對抗。
倘若允許使用這類的方法來蒐集證據,那將會大大的影響真實性,
因為審判者容易出現「吐真劑/儲思盆必為真」的錯誤直覺信賴。
因此,魔法部才需要禁止以吐真劑或儲思盆,去獲得事件的真相。
故而,大街上那場廝殺是藉由Peter 的尾指及Sirius的沉默定罪。
催狂魔的襲擊,則是藉由Figg太太等人的證言,使 Harry能脫罪。
※ 引述《DRIariel (荷恬甜)》之銘言:
: 大家覺得麻瓜的記憶可以被抽取來看或保存嗎?
: 手邊沒第六集....忘了校長找的記憶裡有沒麻瓜的?@@a
: 如果答案是可以的
: 那其實很多問題都可以解答不會拖到多年以後.....(?
: 像當年天狼星和彼得對戰的真相
: (既然是大街上 應該也有站遠點所以還活著的麻瓜?
: 死人好像就沒在取記憶了?
: 像達力遇到催狂魔那次
: (忘了費太太有沒被抽取記憶?如果有 那爆竹就也是能被抽取的....O Oa
: ....不過這也有可能被魔法部法律限制 因為不能對麻瓜施法?
: BTW 順便請問一下
: 我看英文的維基有 HP WIKI
: 可以單純有一個項目分出來那資料是不是比中文維基多很多?
: (英文渣還不太熟那裡..QAQ)
: 之前一直以為一般維基的資料是一樣的 只差在語言?
: 所以還是英文資料比較多嗎?
--
老化四徵兆
○ zzzz ! * \○/ ★ (○ ?
└□ " ○□═ □ □>
√√ ╦══╦ ∥ |\
坐著一直睡 躺著睡不著 舊的一直提 說過就忘記 Ωtotorolin
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 180.176.108.174
推
09/02 12:23, , 1F
09/02 12:23, 1F
已修正,感謝!
→
09/02 13:20, , 2F
09/02 13:20, 2F
※ 編輯: HermesKing 來自: 180.176.108.174 (09/02 13:55)
推
09/02 14:28, , 3F
09/02 14:28, 3F
→
09/02 14:31, , 4F
09/02 14:31, 4F
已修正,感謝!
好久不見啊,最近都泡在八卦版發廢文、推廢推 XDDDDD
推
09/02 17:49, , 5F
09/02 17:49, 5F
推
09/02 22:29, , 6F
09/02 22:29, 6F
→
09/02 22:31, , 7F
09/02 22:31, 7F
這篇文是抓這個概念下去寫的,被看穿了!
→
09/03 09:02, , 8F
09/03 09:02, 8F
→
09/03 09:03, , 9F
09/03 09:03, 9F
推
09/03 10:14, , 10F
09/03 10:14, 10F
→
09/03 10:14, , 11F
09/03 10:14, 11F
→
09/03 10:15, , 12F
09/03 10:15, 12F
推
09/03 14:10, , 13F
09/03 14:10, 13F
→
09/03 14:10, , 14F
09/03 14:10, 14F
要超展開的論述一下,或許可以把 source code 的概念扯進來,不過就太展開了 XD
其實這種大世界的作品,很多設定是作者本身都沒想到的呢!
※ 編輯: HermesKing 來自: 180.176.108.174 (09/03 15:19)
推
09/04 14:12, , 15F
09/04 14:12, 15F
推
09/04 20:36, , 16F
09/04 20:36, 16F
推
09/05 01:03, , 17F
09/05 01:03, 17F
→
09/05 01:45, , 18F
09/05 01:45, 18F
這是出自於羅琳大嬸專頁的問與答(該頁面已移除,只剩文檔於網路流傳)
或許在Potter More裡面能找的到相關資料,期待強者補足。
Section: F.A.Q.
Veritaserum plays a big part in finding out the truth from Mad-Eye Moody in
book four. Why then is it not used for example in the trials mentioned in the
same book? It would be much easier in solving problems like whether Sirius
Black was guilty or not?
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those
insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against
it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was
still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures
against the Potion - he might have sealed his own throat and faked a
declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before
it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other
words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is
not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and
others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.
Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the
chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and
increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into
Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses.
The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of
the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery
to render himself immune to it.
※ 編輯: HermesKing 來自: 180.176.108.174 (09/05 09:48)
→
09/05 19:05, , 19F
09/05 19:05, 19F
→
09/05 19:05, , 20F
09/05 19:05, 20F
→
09/05 19:06, , 21F
09/05 19:06, 21F
推
09/05 21:24, , 22F
09/05 21:24, 22F
推
09/06 01:36, , 23F
09/06 01:36, 23F
討論串 (同標題文章)
本文引述了以下文章的的內容:
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 2 篇):