GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

How does River's brain work?

POSTED BY: ZACHSMIND
UPDATED: Sunday, April 4, 2004 02:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7730
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, January 3, 2004 12:04 PM

ZACHSMIND


River cannot see into the future in the literal sense. She can extrapolate past and present events to predict the future from a pseudo scientific basis but she has no true clairovoyant powers. It's probable that her apparent telepathic powers function the same way. That she doesn't so much read a person's mind as she extrapolates what she knows and from that pieces together what the person is probably thinking at that moment in time. River's brain functions at an unnaturally accelerated rate. Things in the brain that are used to filter thought and separate thought from action and emotion have been removed. Her brain works more like a machine than a person, but she also has the feelings of a little girl, clinging for dear life to the madness that a greater knowledge represents.

I wrote a piece about this a short while back for Whedonesque Wiki.

http://whedonesque.com/wiki/index.php/Main/RiverTam

If anyone wishes to argue that River has some mystical capability to see into the future, please feel free to do so in this thread. =)

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 12:16 PM

CAPTBAGGYTROUSERS


I agree with about half of this theory. I would say she's doesn't have precognition, but she does seem to have sporadic episodes of actual telepathy. Watch "Ariel" and take note of the 3-D image of her brain; it flares red when danger is approaching, despite the fact that there are no cues for her to pick up on.

The only instance where she seemed to actually have an instance of psychic foresight was when she said "Fire," in "Out of Gas" before the fireball hit. Again, if she's supposedly picking up subtle cues, what was it here? One could argue that the engine had stopped, no one else noticed and she merely extrapolated what was likely to happen, but I think it was supposed to be a flash of foresight in this instance.

History repeats the old conceits

http://topshelftvshow.com
Updated! Improved! Shiny!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 12:41 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE


There are many instances of River using clairvoyance.
I will name Safe as one good example. Not only did she read little Ruby's mind, she knew when Serenity and her crew were about to appear to save her and Simon from the fire.
Ariel is another good example, when River, Simon and Jayne are doing their thing in the hospital; River is aware that something has gone wrong, and that they are about to be captured. Also, in the same episode, she is aware of the imminent arrival of the blue-hands.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 2:27 PM

TEELABROWN


How about in Ariel, when she slashes Jayne and says: "He looks better in red."; and the way the Blue Hands kill people is to make them bleed. Is there a connection there?

............................................................................................
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Keep flyin', and remember, THEY can't take the sky from US!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 2:42 PM

ZACHSMIND


Regarding Ruby:

"Her sister got killed. Mother got crazy, killed the sister. That one lived."

Ruby can't speak. So how did River know this about her? Easy. River observed the girl for most of that day, and from Ruby's behavior, River surmised that Ruby once had a sister and a mother but that her mother went crazy and killed her sister, leaving Ruby alone. The fictitious Sherlock Holmes was able to learn much more about a person after observing them for a manner of minutes, so the theory that River could learn about someone after spending a day with them, not far-fetched.

As for River knowing when Mal and the gang were going to come and save them? Well, River knows Mal and the gang well enough to predict that if they could save the Tam siblings, they would. She didn't mention it before she did because she could also theorize that if Mal and the gang saved them, it would take a certain amount of time to plan and then execute said plan.

In Ariel, we see her brain activity when she starts putting everything together. She knows that Jayne's changing the agreement Simon had made with Mal. Based on Jayne's personality, River surmises this is because Jayne has betrayed them. Something she's been assuming Jayne would do. At the beginning of the episode she attacked Jayne not because she mystically foresaw his imminent betrayal, but because based on her observational sensory input, there was a high probability that he had probably betrayed them already. Besides. She was right. He looks good in red. *smirk*

She knew the blue hands were coming cuz she knew Jayne betrayed them, and if they were caught, the blue hands couldn't be far behind.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 6:03 PM

KELSO


It seems unlikely that she could deduce such specifics about the little girl's history, simply by observing her behaviour. There are alot of different things that could have caused the girl's trauma.

Based on what we have seen in the series, River has to have some level of psychic ability. How else could you explain the Shepard Book bit in OBJECTS IN SPACE?

-------
Well, here I am.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 6:50 PM

HKCAVALIER


Well, first of all Joss has given the game away on his DVD commentary where he specifially states that she is indeed psychic. In terms of the story, her certainty of the the little mute girl's history should make it clear.

To say that Sherlock Holmes could have deduced that much without being psychic would only be a compelling argument against River's psychic gift (or more particularly, the narrative necessity of that explaination) if Sherlock Holmes were not a fictional character. On the other hand, who's to say that Mr. Holmes is not himself psychic? One certainly needn't believe in an ability in order to posess it, right? Maybe all that "power of deduction" is Sherlock's way of rationalizing his gift? But what I want to know is what makes all these fantastical Holmesian deductive "powers" any less supernatural than psychic awareness? Intuition, the way our subconscious picks up on the motives of others and the functioning of the unseen things is a fact of life as banal as freeway driving.

If we accept the existance of psychic phenomena (and I'm sorry, but if you deny it out of hand I think you are being very narrow minded indeed), then good ol' Akim's Razor tells us that we can skip all the tortured argumentation and simply accept that the girl is psychic.



HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 8:22 PM

ZACHSMIND


I am not denying psychic phenomena as a possibility. I am also not questioning River Tam's ability to extrapolate from observation an anticipation of future events. I'm simply saying she is not psychic in any mystical sense. Every statement or action she makes which might be perceived by us as supernatural phenomena that can't be explained CAN be explained through the proper usage of contrived technobabble.

I admitted in my previous statement that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. River Tam is a fictional character so I see no problem in comparing the two. Sherlock Holmes was NOT psychic. He trained his mind with deductive reasoning. I'm suggesting that River's natural aptitude for knowledge coupled with the experiments that were conducted upon her by Blue Sun has caused River Tam to have a near computer like mind that works on a hyper level of reasoning, similar to that of Sherlock Holmes.

She takes in sensory input as if she were a computer jacked into the world, and her brain has been programmed to process this information at an accelerated level and make truthful accurate deductions based on this information. Now with such information I grant that she'd be able to predict future events, provided what she interprets through her observations does not change. So long as the men in blue gloves continue to behave the way they do, their behavior will be predictable. So long as Jayne and Book continue to behave the way they do, it is plausible to discern what they are thinking.

As I understand the definition of the word "psychic," it indicates mental processes outside those which can be described by nature or science. I'm saying that while one may incorrectly discern River is a psychic, it would be as unfair to the character as calling her a witch.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 9:34 PM

KELSO


What clues could she have percieved that would explain this...

"I don't give half a hump whether you're innocent or not. So where does that put you?"

While your theory may be a part of what is going on in her head... there has to be some level of psychic ability.

-------
Well, here I am.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 3, 2004 10:27 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE


I gotta be mean here. I just can't help myself.

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachsMind:
I'm simply saying she is not psychic in any mystical sense..... As I understand the definition of the word "psychic," it... (blah blah blah)



You need to stop this right now. The rest of the world goes by the regular dictionary definition of psychic.

Not only has Joss told us in the dvd's that River is psychic (as has been pointed out already to you), but the overwhelming amount of evidence that could be piled against your arguments are too staggering for me to really take you seriously.


-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 4, 2004 7:45 AM

HUMBLE


from what i can see River's psychic abilities seem to allow her to develop a rapport between her mind and people she's "linked" to. she also has the ability to think 10 steps ahead strategically. when she is in a schizoid state, real objects lose their real world identities and become what River interprets them to be in her version of reality. think she has ability to predict future events, but only in a limited way, usually just before the event transpires. also has a homicidal dislike towards blue sun corp.with regards to river's extrapolating/inferrence to deduce the "future", with her current mindset i don't think it's probable although it might be possible. in ariel, we've got proof of her ability to remotely sense the blue glovers.

Let's Do Some CRIME!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 4, 2004 2:07 PM

ZACHSMIND


"You need to stop this right now.."

Excuse me? Your tone isn't exactly a polite one for civilized debate, you ho-tze-duh-PEE-goo! Telling me what to do, you should be ashamed of yourself!

First, y'all're confusing subjective reality with objective reality. The opening sequence of "Objects In Space" is largely told from River's subjective perspective. We assume she's 100% correct in what she surmises the others are thinking, but really we're just being introduced to a glimpse of HOW River thinks. She looks at a person and everything that she has observed about that person floods through her mind simultaneously. The end result may not make a lot of sense to her at the time. Like when Book says, "I don't give half a hump whether you're guilty or innocent so where does that put you?" How do we even know that's what Book was thinking? It's what River thinks he's thinking, but she didn't then ask him to come up with a number between one and ten. She may have been completely wrong about all of it. Even the ocean and violins.

However, let's assume for a moment that she was right about Book. How could she have come to that conclusion without actual supernatural phenomena entering into the picture? Easy. In our own observance of Shepherd Book, we have theorized he's something more than or other than a mere priest. Book's behavior has indicated he's not very concerned about the guilt or innocence of anyone. However, he's supposed to be a priest. These things are normally the concern of someone who actually is a priest. He didn't freak out when the only Bible on the ship was ripped to pieces by River. In fact he took it as a consequence of interest. As if he were more interested in River's approach to faith than he was in the sacriledge she was committing. Doesn't sound like a priest to me. Nor to River.

So her unconscious mind surmised that when a man like Book is sitting there laughing it up with an obvious gohseh head like Jayne, it's readily apparent he cares not about guilt or innocence for anyone. That it's not his true mission. And if that's not his true mission, to be a priest, then he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Where does that put Jayne? Where does that put River?

You don't need some unforeseen power from beyond to tell you that Book is not what he pretends to be. Calling River a psychic is like seeing a gun and calling it a tree branch.

I've listened to the audio commentary and don't recall Whedon ever blatantly referring to River as a psychic. I'm sure if that quote can be found and seen in context you'll see he wasn't referring to her as a psychic in the classic sense that involves crystal balls or seances. The word "psychic" is an inferior word to describe the character of River Tam.

There is no overwhelming evidence that proves her being a mystical psychic. In fact all the evidence suggests the contrary. However, you have to watch the series a few times to catch the nuances and clues. On the surface it looks like her abilities are mystical in origin, but that doesn't coincide with her past. Blue Sun didn't commit devil-worshipping rituals on her or called upon the white pagan gods of nature while lighting candles at River's bedside. Blue Sun cut her head open and treated her grey matter like tossed salad. So if there is no scientific explanation for River, the entire core of the series is in jeopardy.

If Firefly was about a bunch of people who go investigate haunted houses, or explore dungeons and fight dragons, okay we can play with this psychic medium trip. It's unfair of any fan of the series to just lump the character of River into the same category with other famous fictional psychics like.. like Tangina Barrons that old lady in the Poltergeist movies. Now she was a psychic. River's no "Come into the light Carol Anne" kinda psychic.

Y'all can just go on ahead and remain underneath the veil of ignorance all ya want, though. I've made my point. I've said my piece. When arguing with people who actually entertain the thought that Sherlock Holmes of all people may have had psychic powers, well I just have to wash my hands of it and bow to the absurdities of life.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 3:11 AM

DARKSYDE


Not sure all of your "evidence" is overwhelming either. based on your own beliefe and observation you have provided one possible alternitive. It is a well thought out concept that is quite good imo. though I am not convinced it is correct. Given the amount of opinion on both sides of the situation you tend to touch uppon the grey area of beliefe. You believe your concept and view is correct and seem just as unwilling to accpet it as an /option/ instead of the /fact/ that you seem to have convinced yourself that is just as most of those reading appear to believe there side is /fact/ without provideing the level and detail that you did in your posts to explain your possition. I found most of your posts quite intresting and well thought out though the last leaned a bit on the snippy side.

I am curious as to your opinion on the two blue hands indeviduals. Assumeing the situation with river is as you have laid out whay do you sumize they are after her at all? Smart and very observant but worth murding an entire police force over, doubtfull. Some other secret she holds then may haps?

Lates and keep up the interesting work :)

"That's what happens when you call the FEDS!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 4:58 AM

ZACHSMIND


Regarding the blue glove guys it's simple. They see River Tam as their property and Simon as a thief. They are apathetic about the idea that River is Simon's sister. That means nothing to them. River was brought to them through a third party that told River's parents she was going to stay in a special school but this third party actually sold her to the blue boys. So they see her as merely property. Property which they probably paid a lot to get. They realized her potential and spent a great deal of money redesigning her brain so that she could serve their purposes. What those purposes we can only speculate but based on her aptitude with guns and inclination to expertly and violently attack anyone she perceives to be an enemy, I surmise they were grooming her to be an intergalactic assassin under their thumb.

They've invested much in her, and they are relentless in their pursuits, so she's aware of their behavior and that it will not change. They will hunt her down and take her back because that is simply what they do. Again. She's not mystically perceiving their behavior. She's predicting their behavior based on her observations of them before. Everything is a mathematical probability to her, from Jayne's betrayal to Kaylee's interest in her brother.

What some call psychic phenomena, River would refer to as mathematical probabilities. And the blue boys hunting her down is a 100% probability.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 2:59 PM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

Originally posted by ZachsMind:
... based on her aptitude with guns and inclination to expertly and violently attack anyone she perceives to be an enemy, I surmise they were grooming her to be an intergalactic assassin under their thumb.




She doesn't have an "inclination" to expertly attack people. She only did on one occassion, the assault on Neska's base, in a life or death situation. Her attack on Jayne was not "expert." An expert attack would be something lethal, such as neck-stabbing.

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachsMind:
He didn't freak out when the only Bible on the ship was ripped to pieces by River. In fact he took it as a consequence of interest. As if he were more interested in River's approach to faith than he was in the sacriledge she was committing. Doesn't sound like a priest to me. Nor to River.




That doesn't mean he's a priest. I've seen a bishop tear pages from the Bible to illustrate a point. Nobody at our church cared. It's not like the Koran, where it has to be pretty, and you gotta hold it in a special way. It's just information, like if you had the Bible on a floppy disk.

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachsMind:
Blue Sun didn't commit devil-worshipping rituals on her or called upon the white pagan gods of nature while lighting candles at River's bedside. Blue Sun cut her head open and treated her grey matter like tossed salad. So if there is no scientific explanation for River, the entire core of the series is in jeopardy.



Couldn't the knifing of her brain unlock some mystical psychic ability? It's actually pretty plausible. When you do drugs like LSD, it allows previously suppressed pathways in the brain to start working, enabling you to see music and such. Normally we can't see things like that, because it would be maddeningly confusing, so our brain shuts it off. That would explain why they knifed out her brain filter thingy, like Simon explained. Of course the side effects are confusing images and uncontrolled emotions, but whatever.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 2:59 PM

LTNOWIS


Oops, I posted my response twice. I guess I'll delete the 2nd posting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 4:15 PM

KURUKAMI


You mean, other than this?

Joss Whedon said, in the commentary to "Objects in Space":
Quote:

She's also important because this episode was designed to be about River, to start dealing with the story of River. What we're seeing obviously are psychic visions of things we've either heard or don't yet understand. We're seeing the teaser through her perspective, which is somewhat disassociative from reality.
... and here...
Quote:

Now right here, we're going through the ship again, to what is my favorite shot, River listening. This shot here, the Batgirl shot as I call it, I had to shoot four times before I found the right angle. The point of the scene, storywise, is that they are being listened to, below and above, by two people who are outsiders, who hear everything they're saying, but, and can understand it on a level that even they can't, since she is psychic and he is so intuitive as to be nearly psychic, yet they also can't understand a great deal of it because it is just, there's a synapse in them that is broken.
... and here...
Quote:

And the fact of the matter is, psychic was exactly as far as I was prepared to go, she wasn't going to become a ship. But the idea that you might believe it, makes you look at the ship in a new way, makes you understand her in a different way, and that's what I was y'know, trying to get at in a large way, besides just having alot of fun.

All of these are in the "Objects in Space" commentary, which was kindly transcribed by Punkinpuss on this page: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=4&t=3153

History doesn't always repeat itself. Sometimes it merely shouts "Weren't you listening the first time?!?" and lets fly with a club.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 6:02 PM

ZACHSMIND


"Her attack on Jayne was not "expert." An expert attack would be something lethal, such as neck-stabbing."

That would only be if her intent was to kill Jayne, which obviously it was not. She simply wanted to see how Jayne would look in red.

If she wanted Jayne dead, he'd be dead. She killed three men blind. I question whether River is even capable of making an error. What she says and does has purpose, even if it's not readily apparent.

Regarding Book there are other actions he's made which question whether or not he is what he claims to be. Like River, Book has shown a surprising ability with guns, one that would not be assumed from a shepherd. He's gained medical attention from the Alliance when they would have otherwise turned him away. He tried to intimidate Mal once in regards to that 'special hell' but otherwise he's predominantly not been much of a god fearin type. He hangs with Jayne and Inara in a way priest-like people generally would not. There's also all the moments that the characters have shared which we haven't seen on the show.

Early was able to determine in a matter of seconds that Book wasn't a shepherd. I suggest that River could learn even more than that just by observing him for the several months that these people have shared time on the ship together.

"Couldn't the knifing of her brain unlock some mystical psychic ability? It's actually pretty plausible."

I'm not questioning the validity of psychic phenomena. I'm saying in this case it's not necessary to make that assumption. She can be "psychic" in a nonmagical sense and that's perfectly valid. In which case, the use of the word psychic is misleading.

Which brings us to dear Mister Whedon. From Kurukami's findings on the audio commentary:

"What we're seeing obviously are psychic visions of things we've either heard or don't yet understand."

Notice that Whedon does not refer to River as A psychic. He says what we're obviously seeing are visions of things we've either heard before or don't yet understand. "psychic visions."

And back at the end of season two of Buffy, Buffy obviously killed her lover and sent him to hell, never to return... At least until season three. =)

I can't argue the second one except to reiterate that Whedon obviously wants us to believe she is psychic. He once wanted us to believe Willow was straight. Or that Spike was irredeemable. Or that Cordelia was becoming a god (I still have a candle in the window for Cordy on that score). Just because Whedon says it, that don't make it so. And EVEN if he means psychic sincerely, I still insist he's not meaning it in a mystical sense.

Firefly's 'verse ain't the BuffyVerse. Magic is about as feasible as aliens in the Firefly 'verse. It's a big fat maybe. Not impossible, but not a conclusion one should jump too without exhausting all other possibilities. When one can explain something more scientifically, that's the direction to go.

Whedon again: "And the fact of the matter is, psychic was exactly as far as I was prepared to go, she wasn't going to become a ship."

"Psychic" is the outside limit of her character. It's as far as Whedon's rubber band will stretch with River, but there's all this bufferzone y'all are just dismissing, in order to go straight to the extreme. River doesn't HAVE to be a mystical psychic. There's many more levels and possibilities here.

Maybe that's what really happened with Firefly? It peaked too soon? Or maybe Whedon wanted us all to assume River was psychic, and then he was gonna surprise us as he has done countless times before.

Maybe we'll find out with the movie. Maybe we'll never know for sure. Bottom line: Firefly ain't Buffy and it ain't Angel, so I'm not jumping the gun and assuming mystical powers. You can if you want but that's not what the evidence of the show is suggesting to me, whether Whedon intended it or not.

River is no "come into the light Carol Anne" kinda psychic.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 6:24 PM

SHEWHOHATHAPEN


If I understand this correctly your argument is that River is not a psychic in the mystical sense but rather someone who is able to through her genius run probabilities and such to accurately predict the future and guess as to what people are thinking.

Now I always assumed that she was psychic in the sci-fi sense which while it sometimes has the explanation you're giving is just as often the result of experimentation awakening parts of the human mind that are theoretically naturally capable of telepathy and precognition. That whole humans-only-use-a-small-percentage-of-their-brain-so-what's-the-rest-of-it-for concept.

I mean I figured there was nothing mystical about River's abilites just based on the virtue that it's a sci-fi show. But at the same time since Whedon does refer to her as psychic and does insinuate that the things she sees in OiS are accurate and not deduced but merely percieved as "psychic visions" (he also refers to Early's intuitiveness, not deductive abilities which I think is also an indication of where Joss is coming from with this), I'm more inclined to believe that it's an actual superhuman ability as opposed to an application of deductive reasoning and observation. But a superhuman ability gained by scientific means not mystical.

---
"I'm very sorry if she tipped off anyone about your cunningly concealed herd of cows."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 6:57 PM

CARDIE


River attacked the Blue Sun logo on Jayne's shirt; Jayne just happened to be in it at the time. She may have intuited that he was a guy who could be easily bought by Blue Sun, and she wanted to warn him against it, saying that he looked better in red, i.e. as someone loyal to the people on Serenity, and also as an oblique threat that she'd kill him if he betrayed them to B.S.

Cardie

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 5, 2004 9:43 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Zachs,

Forgive me if you've made this clear somewhere above, but what the heck is the diffence between a "mystical psychic" and what? a "scientific psychic?" Are you saying it is impossible to accept telepathy without believing in fairies? Are you saying that remote viewing is fundamentally unscientific? Last I checked, telepathy and clarvoiance were staples of Sci-fi. Hello, Mr. Spock?

It's pretty clear you've got some kinda axe to grind (and hey, that's cool, I've got plenty), but I'd appreciate it if you'd grind it explicitily rather than waging your private battle with "mysticism" off screen somewhere. What's your beef? Why isn't the simplest answer--River's psychic--acceptible to you? As you say it is "unnecessary" to explain her perception as "psychic," so I can say that it is unnecessary to go through all these mental gymnastics to explain her behavior as some mechanistic simulation of psychic awareness.

In OIS, the three most reliable, grounded, least fanciful people on the ship--Mal, Zoe and the Shepard all seem to be able to wrap their heads around the idea of River being psychic. Why not you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 4:32 AM

ZACHSMIND


"Are you saying it is impossible to accept telepathy without believing in fairies?"

That would be putting words in my mouth. I'm not talking about the possibility of believing in ESP versus the fae in this reality. That would be comparing apples to oranges. What you personally believe in this reality is up to you. I'm talking about the fictitious reality of Firefly. In said virtuality, faeries have yet to be proven by science. Telepathy and precognition have yet to be proven by science. The fact that happens to be the case in this reality, is pure coincidence.

Whedon has used psychic phenomena in the BuffyVerse and with great success. My personal favorite was in BtVS's "Help" with the short-lived but much loved character of Cassie. However, the FireFly universe is a little different. The genre for the series is space western, not horror fantasy.

For speculative fiction it is good to have a scientific basis for everything, or at least the illusion of such. Otherwise the virtuality doesn't hold water. Even if that explanation is left vague for the audience, so long as there is a scientific basis, the fictitious reality holds up better under intense scrutiny.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 4:51 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Zachsmind wrote:

Quote:

Regarding Ruby:

"Her sister got killed. Mother got crazy, killed the sister. That one lived."

Ruby can't speak. So how did River know this about her? Easy. River observed the girl for most of that day, and from Ruby's behavior, River surmised that Ruby once had a sister and a mother but that her mother went crazy and killed her sister, leaving Ruby alone. The fictitious Sherlock Holmes was able to learn much more about a person after observing them for a manner of minutes, so the theory that River could learn about someone after spending a day with them, not far-fetched.



I disagree. There is no way by simply observing a little girl physically moving around, if in fact she moved at all, that River could deduce that she had a sister and that their mother went insane & tired to kill them both.

I think it more likely that River's brain was altered or enhanced by the Blue Hands. The tinkering they did may have given her the ability to use more than the 5-10% of the brain capacity that the average human uses. Telepathy and precognitive abilities may be results of this tampering, but I do not think that River actually has control over those abilities or when they occur.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 6:26 AM

KURUKAMI


Quote:

Originally posted by ZachsMind:
I'm not questioning the validity of psychic phenomena. I'm saying in this case it's not necessary to make that assumption. She can be "psychic" in a nonmagical sense and that's perfectly valid. In which case, the use of the word psychic is misleading.

Which brings us to dear Mister Whedon. From Kurukami's findings on the audio commentary:

"What we're seeing obviously are psychic visions of things we've either heard or don't yet understand."

Notice that Whedon does not refer to River as A psychic. He says what we're obviously seeing are visions of things we've either heard before or don't yet understand. "psychic visions."


Evidently you missed the quote where he clearly says:
Quote:

Now right here, we're going through the ship again, to what is my favorite shot, River listening. This shot here, the Batgirl shot as I call it, I had to shoot four times before I found the right angle. The point of the scene, storywise, is that they are being listened to, below and above, by two people who are outsiders, who hear everything they're saying, but, and can understand it on a level that even they can't, since she is psychic and he is so intuitive as to be nearly psychic, yet they also can't understand a great deal of it because it is just, there's a synapse in them that is broken.

Emphasis mine. :)

History doesn't always repeat itself. Sometimes it merely shouts "Weren't you listening the first time?!?" and lets fly with a club.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 11:32 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

Originally posted by ZachsMind:
Telepathy and precognition have yet to be proven by science.



Is there proof for noiseless floating chandelier mechanisms, interstellar transport in a matter of days, or visible beam weapon mechanisms? Or even proof of the basic theorys they'd need? No, you just assume they use unknown methods. Same with telepathy. The "she's got ESP" theory is a lot more believable than your "she figures things out logically" theory.
Remember Time for the Stars by Heinlein? Everything stringently followed the laws of physics, except for the idea that twins sometimes had ESP. So River having ESP wouldn't defy Firefly's regard for scientific accuracy.
Oh yeah, it might be easier for you to accept if you thought of it as ESP instead of psychic ability.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 11:43 AM

HKCAVALIER


Thank you, LtNowis,

Just as beam weapon technology is an extrapolation from lazers, so esp is an extapolation from the faculty of intuition studied for nearly a century now in psychology.

Are you aware of the work of Sheldrake and others in England on Morphic Field Theory? It posits a bio-electical field effect to account for mysterious processes like unerring bird migration, the schooling of fish and how pets are able to sense when their owners are coming home. There is a lot of evidence for animals being able to sense others over great distances without the aid of the five official senses. Very soon ESP may be far more "scientific" than ray guns...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 9:20 AM

AERRIN


Quote:


Whedon has used psychic phenomena in the BuffyVerse and with great success.....

For speculative fiction it is good to have a scientific basis for everything, or at least the illusion of such. Otherwise the virtuality doesn't hold water. Even if that explanation is left vague for the audience, so long as there is a scientific basis, the fictitious reality holds up better under intense scrutiny.




I'm curious to know whether you are a big scifi fan, or if Firefly is one of your firsts. I ask this because it seems to me that what this is coming down to is a question of semantics: you argue that River is not 'mystically' pyschic, and you seem to be assuming that if we use the word 'pyschic' with regards to River that we are talking about the same sort of 'pyschic' that existed in the Buffyverse. In my mind, they are, and have always been, two completely different things.

Sci fi has long used pyschic abilities as a plot point without ever moving into that 'mystical' realm. In fact, it's often used it to bring into question the whole notion of 'supernatural' - to say that things that have been accepted as 'supernatural' are actually quite natural.

The thing about the supernatural is that it tends to mean 'things that we think happen but cannot explain rationally'. As time goes on, and we uncover more and more of the world, things that were previously 'supernatural' (solar exclipses, meteor showers) become 'natural' because we can explain them.

In the Buffyverse, pyschic phenomenon were certainly mystical, in that they were related to 'magic', but I'm not sure they were /supernatural/ - because they did in fact function according to a set of rules that could be discovered and understood. They were simply a different set of rules than what most of the world knew and accepted.

But back to Firefly - You mention that with speculative fiction we need to have a scientific basis in order for it to hold water. I very strongly believe that we /do/ have that basis, in two parts.

1) It is the future. It's simple, but neat, and many, many sci fi works have been based on little more (Anne McCaffrey's Rowan series comes to mind). In the same way that we now understand solar eclipses, it seems reasonable to speculate that centuries from now, we will be able to control gravity and use more of our brainpower than we currently do, in ways that we currently cannot. And let's face it, there's a certain amount of suspension of disbelief that comes with the basis of sci fi so that we can explore the more intriguing questions (IF humans could teraform planets, what would happen? IF humans would control gravity, what would they do? IF humans were able to manipulate brains into pyschic activity, how would that happen, what would that mean, how would it affect people?)

2) The Blue Hands. /This/ is the scientific basis that has been presented in the Fireflyverse context. The basis here is that the Blue Hands tweaked River's brain, letting out already latent (NOT mystical) abilities. To further this, the assumption is that /everyone/ has these abilities to /some extent/ - they simply do not /use/ them because of various inhibitors in the brain. (although I suspect some will argue with me on this point, but if we're working semi-logically, I think that's the conclusion) I suspect that they chose geniuses to perform these experiments on because they already use more of their brain than most humans, and so the chances of messing her up as they try to get a maximum of brain usage are smaller.

Theoretically, should the Blue Hands perfect their experiments (and I'm not sure that's possible, given what it did to River), they could make /anyone/ into this. The assumption is not that River is getting pyschic powers from some unexplainable force. It's that science has poked and prodded and released something that is inherent to the human brain.

That sort of reasoning, I think, holds up just as well as floating chandeliers or gravity control as far as 'speculative science'. As others have mentioned, folks have been speculating about that aspect of the human brain for years. Really, it only has to become 'mystical' if you absolutely firmly believe that no way no how can the human brain ever do that.

And that's a different arguement all together.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 10:30 AM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG


While I believe River is simply psychic in an ESP way, I think what you're reffering to is something called Mindsight, it's when our mind takes all we know about something (consciously and subconsciously) and pieces it together into a single conscious thought. This is (most likely) how we know when the dog wants to come in from outside or how we're thinking of someone we havn't seen in a long time and the next day they call.
It's certainly possible that River has a very enhanced mindsight capability, but like I said, I still stick to the ESP idea.... or possibly both.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 2:40 PM

BLAZINGBUG


On the subject of how River's mind works, I have a theory.

We know they removed the part of her brain that allows her to push thoughts in the back of her mind. What if what she picks up are those same thoughts in others? The thoughts that you try to push to the back of your mind.

That might be what we see in OiS. Simon's hidden selfishness, Jayne's betrayal, Mal's loss of hope at Serenity, Book's dark past, and Inara's secret. All things they have pushed to the back of their minds. We get nothing from Wash and Zoe because their minds are "preoccupied." And Kaylee is just an open cheerful book.

I think Joss might go for a "poetic" telepathy like that.

"Wacky fun..."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 4:19 PM

AERRIN


I think that's a really good theory. I feel relatively certain that stripping her amigdala (sp?) was meant to open up at least receptive empathic possibilities. It's interesting to think that the emotion she recieves are the very ones people are most trying to repress - and it links nicely into the 'empath' notion, which I think has been strongly proven, without the need for the 'telepathic', which I think is still fuzzy and up for debate in the context of the episodes.

It's also a very interesting explanation for why she didn't read anything off Kaylee. Not that I think Kaylee never has supressed emotions, but most times, and at that particular moment, she does tend to be quite open.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 4:20 PM

ZOID


I've stated it before in other threads, so I'll not restate my entire argument, just the short and sweet: The Alliance/BlueSun were operating on her head to remove the distraction of human emotions, and refine her genius into the perfect strategic military weapon.

I surmise that -- perhaps faced with failure in the attempt to create a supercomputer AI -- they figured to take the greatest computer from nature, a human brain, and focus it.

If correct, this means she would not be a single-target weapon like an assassin (you could strip Jayne's amygdala and get that -- if you could find it) or a spy. Rather she would be able to anticipate opponents' amassed movements on a battlefield and have a counter prepared that would not only defeat them, but demoralize them.

Take the following fictitious example, in which River would have been in charge of strategic planning for the Alliance at the Battle of Serenity:

River at command HQ: "We must kill Sgt. Reynolds. Sgt. Malcolm Reynolds, 8th Platoon, 3rd Brigade."

Commander-in-chief: "You mean wipe out the entire 3rd Brigade?"

River: "No. Only Malcolm Reynolds. If you kill the whole brigade, you'll open the flank and allow the others to escape. Reynolds is the key. His unit commander is unstable. See how the unit fell back a quarter kilometer, here? The Captain ordered a retreat without being under attack. Then they regained their ground and swept around an artillery emplacement, came up from behind it and captured it from the vulnerable side. Then they used the cannon to bring down one of our Falcons.

"That's a maneuver hunters use against (name of vicious predatory beast) on Shadow (Mal's home planet). I checked the roster of 8th Platoon. Six from Shadow. Four from urban areas. One son of a wealthy landowner. Reynolds' family are cattle farmers. Always having to weed out the (predatory beasts). This is Reynolds' move: he is leading 8th Platoon.

"Kill him and the 8th Platoon falls, but the Brigade keeps walking into our trap, and the middle of the Independent defense falls...

"Kill Reynolds and Serenity is ours within four hours. If he survives the next 12 hours, we fight on for at least three more months. We may even lose."

Just an example of how I see them using her. Similar to chess, and being able to see the mate by killing a specific pawn at midgame, even if you lose a knight doing it. Of course, the battlefield is infinitely more complex than a chessboard. That's why River's exceptional genius is required by the military-industrial complex.

I think there's plenty of evidence, but to me the most compelling is one simple picture from the end of "Out of Gas"...

River is playing jacks with Kaylee. She holds the ball before her eyes. It looks, to my eye, like it has been CGI-enhanced to resemble a world, a planet...

She says, sotto voce, "I can do this."

And drops the ball, snatching jacks as the scene slowly fades to black.

Child's play.


Respectfully,


zoid


_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
from A Child Shall Lead Them

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 4:28 PM

TENEBRAE


As I think others in the thread said, and I agree with, River doesn't see the future. She sees what people are thinking and by extrapolation (she is kinda genius after all) where they are going. By the same weird twist of genius she has a grasp of spatial mathematics, which allowed her to kill Niska's goons.

River don't play around.

But conversely it is all play to her, she looks at all of it as a game, because, first and formost, she is a kid.

Simon said it best, "She is a kid...she just wants to be a kid."

---Keep it in the air---

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 4:54 PM

ZOID


Browncoat1 wrote:

"I disagree. There is no way by simply observing a little girl physically moving around, if in fact she moved at all, that River could deduce that she had a sister and that their mother went insane & tired to kill them both."

Disagreed. Today's law enforcement personnel have established methodology for criminal interrogation and observation -- initially based upon A.C. Doyle's Holmes, BTW -- which can tell when a detainee is being truthful or not, whether they are hiding something, whether they are sensing guilt... Additionally, Children's Services psych evaluators and field operatives can tell at first glance when a child is being sexually abused, based only on the way the child moves, his or her body language.

Please try again...


Respectfully,

zoid


_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
from A Child Shall Lead Them

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 9:59 PM

BLAZINGBUG


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
Browncoat1 wrote:

"I disagree. There is no way by simply observing a little girl physically moving around, if in fact she moved at all, that River could deduce that she had a sister and that their mother went insane & tired to kill them both."

Disagreed. Today's law enforcement personnel have established methodology for criminal interrogation and observation -- initially based upon A.C. Doyle's Holmes, BTW -- which can tell when a detainee is being truthful or not, whether they are hiding something, whether they are sensing guilt... Additionally, Children's Services psych evaluators and field operatives can tell at first glance when a child is being sexually abused, based only on the way the child moves, his or her body language.

Please try again...



I really don't think there is any need to. No amount of observation or body language is going to determine the specifics of a two year old case from a non-communicative victim. Holmes couldn't even do that because it goes beyond the realm of plausibility to, dare I say it, the realm of science fiction.

As to the ball in OiS, Joss says in the commentary that it is another "object in space," the sphere, the perfect shape. I think any secondary meaning to River's words, "I can do this," is simply, "I can interract with these objects in space." In other words, she can be a part of their world, a member of the crew. I think it is emphasized by then going to Jubal, who was so much like her but separated himself from the world, and there he is alone with no interaction with any "object in space."

All in all, I think Joss put the answer more simply in OiS.

WASH: "Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction!"

ZOE: "You live in a spaceship, dear."

It isn't breaking, but it is a bending of the 4th wall. That's what makes it funny, it's an "in joke" with the viewer. We know it's a science fiction show. If it's science fiction, psychics must be possible.

"Wacky fun..."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2004 10:27 PM

KINGOFTHEMUDDERS


I'm all for over-analysis and whatnot, but Joss is looking for a leap here. Man can fly in Space, Being Psychic is possible. How either works, he doesn't know or really gives a rats ass about. River has a different perspective on everything, River is both a threat and an asset, Blue Sun wants River and will kill everyone in their path to get it, River can kill and does it very well, River can 'hear/see' peoples thoughts, and can see into the close future. These are the things established in all the episodes, this is what he wants you to know, and this is what IS.

My perspective on it, is that there are all these "signals" in life - peoples emotions, their thoughts, the future, whatever - and there's a part of our brain which filters it all out so we can exist in this singular realm of thought. River doesn't have that so she has to distinguish between all these signals, which is why Blue Sun picks geniuses because they can absorb so much and process the information quicker than everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 4, 2004 2:15 AM

ZOID


BlazingBug (Firefly; I dig) & King o' da Mudders:

I agree, to most extents with both of you. Where I disagree with you, I do not do so as strenuously as Zach'sMind.

But I think in the 'real reality' (what a concept) of our world, there is a scientific explanation for everything, including psychic phenomena. I believe in spiritual energy. I believe this energy underpins our universe. I believe that there is... a lost talent? ...in humans to perceive those energies.

We feel them in church (if we are lucky). We feel them in large gatherings wherein the individual identity is released and a group mentality takes over -- I've had 'religious experiences' at sporting events and rock concerts. I was personal witness to a psychic event in which my mother, grandmother and aunt stopped their conversation, looked at each other, and all said nearly simultaneously, "(My grandfather) is dead." When we rushed over to his house, we in fact found him dead, the body still warm (I touched him).

Just because we don't normally perceive these energies -- even though, if they do exist, they must be as omnipresent as electromagnetic energy -- doesn't mean that they don't exist and can't be someday quantified by physical science.

As to the Blazingbug... er, Firefly universe of Joss' creation, who really knows? We're all just speculating; unless we're 'real reality' psychics ourselves, reading JW's mind.

For my part, I still think she's a human military strategy computer, based on the evidence I've stated. If BlueSun needs psychic assassins, they've already got 'em. They work in pairs and wear blue surgical gloves...


Respectfully,


zoid


_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL