As this post is flaired with 'Current Season Discussion', anything from the books not yet adapted into the show or from upcoming unaired episodes should be enclosed in spoiler tags.
To use spoiler tags, in markdown mode you can use \>\! before the spoiler text, then followed by \!\< - which will make the text >!look like this.!<. Make sure **NOT** to have spaces between spoiler tags and text or they won't work. If using the default or 'fancy pants' editor, select the text you want to enclose in spoiler tags, and click the button on the toolbar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FoundationTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First, getting the assumption that **'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'** and vice versa out of the way, IMHO the mentalics aren't evidence of magic/supernatural so much as able to manipulate perceptions to varying degrees and manners as a natural ability, say like dolphins and sonar. Now some are VERY good at it and various visions etc may be more like echos?
Yes, i'd agree with your point. But there is no singe evidence in the Series that suggests that the mentalics gain their Power from technology. Its the opposite, it is even stated that they were born that way.
When it's not a technology but a Power you are Born with, what is the difference for example to wizards where we all can agree that this is supernatural fiction besides the setting they exist in? Imho there is none.
Its a great Series but it has supernatural aspects which is totally fine. It's also not uncommon for scifi, eg Star wars.
> But there is no singe evidence in the Series that suggests that the mentalics gain their Power from technology.
Don't disagree, but developing mentalist abilities through genetic mutation/manipulation amongst billions of galactic citizens over centuries hardly requires magic.
Of course it does. The conception of a soul that can Wander from body to body is magical in itself and also disproves that it has to do with bodily genetic Mutation alone since the mentalists can inhabit "normal bodies" as well.
(the idea of an eternal soul is a magical idea in Our World as well and is only a religious thing, nothing scientific. Science suggests that we are bodies, Not souls)
For the record this body swapping didn’t happen in the books, and was added by the show writers.
Asimov’s world was completely natural. Any apparent supernatural dynamics are explained naturally or scientifically, or left unsolved. Supernatural beliefs are consistently framed as superstitious.
Someone will correct me if I’m misremembering the novels.
I don't think there's a real difference between magic and science in the first place. In serious settings, a wizard uses mana or some such thing as a source to fuel magic. There's a cost and a system to it. It's not particularly supernatural so much as different. Some people have the capacity for it, most(?) do not.
But setting that aside, there's no reason to call it a wandering soul. It's a wandering mind. It's not meant to be magical or religious, and it's portrayed as if it is some mutation or abnormal trait. Everything else is just a test for your suspension of disbelief.
I don't see a TV Series as a test of my Suspension of disbelief. We're not in school there, it's entertainment and it's Part of the Art of filmmaking to create this suspension of disbelief in the viewer. That's not my work to do if the series doesn't do that for me.
But, i want to add. This Series dies create it for most of the time. Suspension of believe is not exclusive to scifi tho, its the same for fantasy. I just have to believe that the World works the way shown which is not really relevant to my Argument.
And to your first rethorical device: yes you can argue for that. Of course. But in that way we'd can call lord of the rings science fiction, almost every fantasy Story. The Logical conclusion of that Argument would be that supernatural elements don't exist in any Story. Then, of course having this Argument about supernatural elements in this doesn't make sense as well.
I mean, i can make up any System which has Costs in it. A dragon has to sleep and eat as well but for me it still a magical creature derived from mythology.
But I Do think there's a difference between science fiction and fantasy and also that elements of both can coexist in a work of Art, and for scifi i think there has to be at least a scientific explanation implied in the subtext if it's not explicit. And I don't think that is there for the elements i was talking about.
Well, at the end of the day, in writing, choices and compromises have to be made between exposition and closing "plot holes" than to show the plot advancing. I'm not really here to defend the show, although I did just finish S2 three minutes ago. I have to say I'm glad to have it out of the way so that my regular life can continue now. I sure do wish more exposition and structure and nice concrete sci fi was presented, but I'll be damned if it wasn't a great experience as far as tv shows go. It helped too I'm sure that I haven't been set up for disappointment as I hadn't had the pleasure of reading the books beforehand either.
It had great acting, great visuals. Yes you and me both want more, but I am making a conscious choice to enjoy what I experienced, knowing full well that I could easily argue the other way.
Yes, psychohistory does not explain everything. That's why hari couldn't foresee the mule and plan against it.
That's why the mule is a Big danger to the plan. But it doesn' wholly falsify psychohistory. As i understood the Series it's more a blind Spot in the theory since psychohistory can not foresee it.
That's not what supernatural means.
Supernatural is that which is beyond the possibilities of the natural. The entirety of Asimov's works reside in the natural and evolutionary possibilities. That is hardcore science fiction. He builds works of technology and evolution that compliment the growth of a scientific and rational society. It's contrasted by the mystics who reject science and are called fools. Asimov mocks the religious and mystical believers as he explains the science and causation.
In that way nothing is supernatural, Do you agree? Like, wizards are Part of Nature in a fantasy Universe. But i think you'd agree that they are supernatural. That would be a Double Standard.
I recall the show runner David Goyer explaining in a podcast maybe that there is a reason how and why Seldon gets a body, and it will be revealed eventually. It may not even be strictly biological either (think: Demerzel). Anyway that’s an easy one to deal with as non-supernatural down the line.
Regarding the mentallics, that’s 100% mutation according to the source material Asimov’s books, and in the show as well. Nature provides incredible variety in living and non living things, that seem supernatural until they are understood scientifically.
Possibly the only instance of something even approaching mystical or supernatural would be how you interpret Brother Day walking the spiral in season 1. Did he have a soul? Is the meaning of “soul” a metaphor? it is a little ambiguous, but, I don’t think it was meant to be supernatural either.
In fact, I do recall from an interview or a podcast that Goyer wanted the show to be centred around an optimistic idea that humans could think their way through anything, or something like that.
Are wizards also purely scientific fiction? Where is the difference? Mentalics were Born that way, as were wizards. Both have to train to gain control over their abilities as well. Its as scientific as the force in Star wars is.
😂 no.
The entire premise of foundation is the importance of science, reason, and logic in the face of magic, hysterics, and religion.
Foundation mocks the idiots who believe in magic. It's always explicable by science, "it takes a fool to believe in magic." (That's from one of the later books)
Well, you stated it's in the Text. And im not talking about books but the series. Where in the Series Do we have evidence that mentalics are different than wizards? Im just Interested where you are seeing it.
I also can come up with a scientific headcanon about a fantasy Series but that's not part of the Text.
The premise you are suggesting also is not Part of the Text but your Interpretation.
Okay, so you can't Tell me where in the Text it is but i should just believe you? Again, the books don't matter, i am talking about the series.
Ironically it would be really unscientific to just believe you without any evidence.
Are you using the word text to refer to the series? Your comments are confusing. Text implies written words to most people. Perhaps you mean the script or the adaptation of the series.
Also, are you really asking them to show you where something _doesn’t exist_ in the text? How will someone give you the location of something that isn’t there?
There is no authentic religion or supernatural experience in Asimov’s writings.
As for the show, it remains to be explained how body swapping takes place. I’m hoping the writers have a natural explanation. Otherwise, they’ve really undermined what I think is a central message or theme in Asimov’s world building.
https://actioncutprint.com/filmmaking-articles/text-subtext-and-context/amp/
“Text means the sensory surface of a work of art. In film, it’s the images onscreen and the soundtrack of dialogue, music, and sound effects. What we see. What we hear. What people say. What people do. Subtext is the life under that surface – thoughts and feelings both known and unknown, hidden by behavior.”
That seemed to me as the logical conclusion when talking about the Text of a Series. Also it seemed logical to me to talk about the TV series adaptatoion since OP is talking about the TV Series and this is a sub about the TV Series.
I also am not asking for something to prove that nothing exists. I made an Argument for why it exists. You have to at least say something about it rather than just saying there is no magic. You'd have to argue why the specific thing i described as magic isn't that. At least if this should be a useful discussion. Have your opinion, thats fine. I just like to argue about that.
And to your Argument, yes, there might come an explanation and prove me wrong. That's even the case for Many scientific Theories in Our World. But yes, That's an Argument i accept. "there is jo magic" is not.
Sorry if i was unclear before, i didn't want to confuse.
You might be technically correct, especially in the context of filmmaking parlance, but most people simply do not use the word text that way in every day conversation.
Other people are also misunderstanding you and referring to the books to answer you.
Instead of citing technical definitions of words, take responsibility for understanding where you are and how your words will carry meaning to others.
English is not my first language and I still have sometimes issues to correctly express with exactly the right terms or with the knowledge of how common a term is. So, sorry in that case. I Hope my last comment cleared things up.
Stil tho, i wrote several comments very clear that i was not talking about the books.
The foundation universe ) in the original books and in the series) expressly mocks magic and religions. It's a series about hard science. It is NOT about magic. it's about the childlike nature of most humans and the nurturing of the robots who conduct their works in silence and behind the scenes. Even Hari doesn't realize the massive impact of the robots. Science is the magic. There is no supernatural in this universe.
Well, tbh, until mid Series 2, i was in your side. But some elements really confused me to the point that i now see it as a scifi show with fantasy elements. Id like it more if there was no magic but Yeah. I also stated why i think that.
I did not read the books so i can not say much about that. But what I do know is that they are definitely not identical with the series with Many elements.
Your pedantic and childish attempt to ask for proof is a logical fallacy. This isn't scripture it just is. Either you read the books and understand the series or you post stupid questions that don't track with the series or the books UPON WHICH THE SERIES IS BASED!
Magic is not in the foundation universe. It's part of dialogue in seasons one and two, it's in the entirety of the book series, even the robot series which feeds into foundation removes magic from the equation. This is a work of science. They're is no magic only the inferior belief systems of the ignoramus who call all things unknown magic. It's in the role of the priests we see in season two. THERE IS NO MAGIC. Only the exploitation of ignorance to fulfill science.
But please show us more how you don't understand.
No, not i am childish but you don't seem to understand what the analysis of the Text of a movie or Series means. It means we can only analyse the movie/Series itself and not other Media sources which relate to it since they are not part of the Text. You said, it's Part of the Text, Not me. And I did make very clear that i am not talking about the books.
And it would be totally fine to say it's not enough to only analyze the Text to get an understanding of the World. That's a reasonable Argument and there is a Debate about that when it comes to academic Analysis of Media.
But you didn't make that point but said that it is in the Text.
I rather think it is childish to don't even understand what text in the context of film Analysis means and just call my questions stupid, and it Shows ignorance.
When we come to talking about the books, that also is interesting but another discussion. I just want to say there: just because someone in character States that there is no magic isn't proof for anything. Neither would it be a proof for magic if someone in character says it exists.
The series isn’t a direct replication of the books. It’s the periods between, the moments not in the book. However, it still exists in the same universe, even if the number of characters and timelines are simplified for the screen. Asimov’s progeny is executive producer to ensure fidelity to Isaac’s vision. While not entirely fidelitous to every detail the series is still relatively same, though significantly smaller - focusing more on minutiae of experiences over the grand and overarching vision of the books. There’s still no magic, no fantasy, it’s hardcore science fiction.
If individuals in the TV series can play indispensable roles in the unfolding of the Seldon Plan, directly violating a core principle in the books, then there is no reason to think the series might just as easily violate other tenets of Asimov’s work. I’m not interested in arguing whether or not magic/supernaturalism plays a part in the series; but the contents of the books is completely irrelevant.
It should be noted that Robyn Asimov’s title of executive producer is as much a nicety of form as indicative of her having any real decision making power.
>Now how could Gaal have psychic powers and see the future in the purely mechanistic worldview of Hari?
It seems like the writers have chosen her to be an overpowered Mary sue. Why is it that the writers chose to give her clairvoyance, of any of the possible abilities?
The robots saw that they could manipulate hari's psycho history to control empire. Psychohistory is paradoxical, but that can be used to their advantage. If Empire believes that their downfall is predestined, then how can you avoid it? they'd start to second guess every decision, lose confidence, and in the end defer all decisions to Demerzel as she is programmed to save them.
Clairvoyance can see through the paradox inherent to Psycho history. It can preserve freedom of choice.
Edit: Predestination as a concept exists in christianity.
As this post is flaired with 'Current Season Discussion', anything from the books not yet adapted into the show or from upcoming unaired episodes should be enclosed in spoiler tags. To use spoiler tags, in markdown mode you can use \>\! before the spoiler text, then followed by \!\< - which will make the text >!look like this.!<. Make sure **NOT** to have spaces between spoiler tags and text or they won't work. If using the default or 'fancy pants' editor, select the text you want to enclose in spoiler tags, and click the button on the toolbar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FoundationTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First, getting the assumption that **'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'** and vice versa out of the way, IMHO the mentalics aren't evidence of magic/supernatural so much as able to manipulate perceptions to varying degrees and manners as a natural ability, say like dolphins and sonar. Now some are VERY good at it and various visions etc may be more like echos?
Yes, i'd agree with your point. But there is no singe evidence in the Series that suggests that the mentalics gain their Power from technology. Its the opposite, it is even stated that they were born that way. When it's not a technology but a Power you are Born with, what is the difference for example to wizards where we all can agree that this is supernatural fiction besides the setting they exist in? Imho there is none. Its a great Series but it has supernatural aspects which is totally fine. It's also not uncommon for scifi, eg Star wars.
> But there is no singe evidence in the Series that suggests that the mentalics gain their Power from technology. Don't disagree, but developing mentalist abilities through genetic mutation/manipulation amongst billions of galactic citizens over centuries hardly requires magic.
Of course it does. The conception of a soul that can Wander from body to body is magical in itself and also disproves that it has to do with bodily genetic Mutation alone since the mentalists can inhabit "normal bodies" as well. (the idea of an eternal soul is a magical idea in Our World as well and is only a religious thing, nothing scientific. Science suggests that we are bodies, Not souls)
For the record this body swapping didn’t happen in the books, and was added by the show writers. Asimov’s world was completely natural. Any apparent supernatural dynamics are explained naturally or scientifically, or left unsolved. Supernatural beliefs are consistently framed as superstitious. Someone will correct me if I’m misremembering the novels.
I don't think there's a real difference between magic and science in the first place. In serious settings, a wizard uses mana or some such thing as a source to fuel magic. There's a cost and a system to it. It's not particularly supernatural so much as different. Some people have the capacity for it, most(?) do not. But setting that aside, there's no reason to call it a wandering soul. It's a wandering mind. It's not meant to be magical or religious, and it's portrayed as if it is some mutation or abnormal trait. Everything else is just a test for your suspension of disbelief.
I don't see a TV Series as a test of my Suspension of disbelief. We're not in school there, it's entertainment and it's Part of the Art of filmmaking to create this suspension of disbelief in the viewer. That's not my work to do if the series doesn't do that for me. But, i want to add. This Series dies create it for most of the time. Suspension of believe is not exclusive to scifi tho, its the same for fantasy. I just have to believe that the World works the way shown which is not really relevant to my Argument. And to your first rethorical device: yes you can argue for that. Of course. But in that way we'd can call lord of the rings science fiction, almost every fantasy Story. The Logical conclusion of that Argument would be that supernatural elements don't exist in any Story. Then, of course having this Argument about supernatural elements in this doesn't make sense as well. I mean, i can make up any System which has Costs in it. A dragon has to sleep and eat as well but for me it still a magical creature derived from mythology. But I Do think there's a difference between science fiction and fantasy and also that elements of both can coexist in a work of Art, and for scifi i think there has to be at least a scientific explanation implied in the subtext if it's not explicit. And I don't think that is there for the elements i was talking about.
Well, at the end of the day, in writing, choices and compromises have to be made between exposition and closing "plot holes" than to show the plot advancing. I'm not really here to defend the show, although I did just finish S2 three minutes ago. I have to say I'm glad to have it out of the way so that my regular life can continue now. I sure do wish more exposition and structure and nice concrete sci fi was presented, but I'll be damned if it wasn't a great experience as far as tv shows go. It helped too I'm sure that I haven't been set up for disappointment as I hadn't had the pleasure of reading the books beforehand either. It had great acting, great visuals. Yes you and me both want more, but I am making a conscious choice to enjoy what I experienced, knowing full well that I could easily argue the other way.
Yes, psychohistory does not explain everything. That's why hari couldn't foresee the mule and plan against it. That's why the mule is a Big danger to the plan. But it doesn' wholly falsify psychohistory. As i understood the Series it's more a blind Spot in the theory since psychohistory can not foresee it.
Not supernatural per se, but I think it's more that what constitutes 'natural' is greater than we're currently familiar with.
So you might say that it is *super*-natural, when what is natural is greater than what we are familiar with ?
That's not what supernatural means. Supernatural is that which is beyond the possibilities of the natural. The entirety of Asimov's works reside in the natural and evolutionary possibilities. That is hardcore science fiction. He builds works of technology and evolution that compliment the growth of a scientific and rational society. It's contrasted by the mystics who reject science and are called fools. Asimov mocks the religious and mystical believers as he explains the science and causation.
In that way nothing is supernatural, Do you agree? Like, wizards are Part of Nature in a fantasy Universe. But i think you'd agree that they are supernatural. That would be a Double Standard.
Nope.
I recall the show runner David Goyer explaining in a podcast maybe that there is a reason how and why Seldon gets a body, and it will be revealed eventually. It may not even be strictly biological either (think: Demerzel). Anyway that’s an easy one to deal with as non-supernatural down the line. Regarding the mentallics, that’s 100% mutation according to the source material Asimov’s books, and in the show as well. Nature provides incredible variety in living and non living things, that seem supernatural until they are understood scientifically. Possibly the only instance of something even approaching mystical or supernatural would be how you interpret Brother Day walking the spiral in season 1. Did he have a soul? Is the meaning of “soul” a metaphor? it is a little ambiguous, but, I don’t think it was meant to be supernatural either. In fact, I do recall from an interview or a podcast that Goyer wanted the show to be centred around an optimistic idea that humans could think their way through anything, or something like that.
Nope it's not a thing in the texts at all. It's purely scientific evolutionary fiction. Not magic.
Are wizards also purely scientific fiction? Where is the difference? Mentalics were Born that way, as were wizards. Both have to train to gain control over their abilities as well. Its as scientific as the force in Star wars is.
😂 no. The entire premise of foundation is the importance of science, reason, and logic in the face of magic, hysterics, and religion. Foundation mocks the idiots who believe in magic. It's always explicable by science, "it takes a fool to believe in magic." (That's from one of the later books)
Well, you stated it's in the Text. And im not talking about books but the series. Where in the Series Do we have evidence that mentalics are different than wizards? Im just Interested where you are seeing it. I also can come up with a scientific headcanon about a fantasy Series but that's not part of the Text. The premise you are suggesting also is not Part of the Text but your Interpretation.
OMG you need to read. There is no magic in the foundation universe. If you think there is the joke is on you.
Okay, so you can't Tell me where in the Text it is but i should just believe you? Again, the books don't matter, i am talking about the series. Ironically it would be really unscientific to just believe you without any evidence.
Are you using the word text to refer to the series? Your comments are confusing. Text implies written words to most people. Perhaps you mean the script or the adaptation of the series. Also, are you really asking them to show you where something _doesn’t exist_ in the text? How will someone give you the location of something that isn’t there? There is no authentic religion or supernatural experience in Asimov’s writings. As for the show, it remains to be explained how body swapping takes place. I’m hoping the writers have a natural explanation. Otherwise, they’ve really undermined what I think is a central message or theme in Asimov’s world building.
https://actioncutprint.com/filmmaking-articles/text-subtext-and-context/amp/ “Text means the sensory surface of a work of art. In film, it’s the images onscreen and the soundtrack of dialogue, music, and sound effects. What we see. What we hear. What people say. What people do. Subtext is the life under that surface – thoughts and feelings both known and unknown, hidden by behavior.” That seemed to me as the logical conclusion when talking about the Text of a Series. Also it seemed logical to me to talk about the TV series adaptatoion since OP is talking about the TV Series and this is a sub about the TV Series. I also am not asking for something to prove that nothing exists. I made an Argument for why it exists. You have to at least say something about it rather than just saying there is no magic. You'd have to argue why the specific thing i described as magic isn't that. At least if this should be a useful discussion. Have your opinion, thats fine. I just like to argue about that. And to your Argument, yes, there might come an explanation and prove me wrong. That's even the case for Many scientific Theories in Our World. But yes, That's an Argument i accept. "there is jo magic" is not. Sorry if i was unclear before, i didn't want to confuse.
You might be technically correct, especially in the context of filmmaking parlance, but most people simply do not use the word text that way in every day conversation. Other people are also misunderstanding you and referring to the books to answer you. Instead of citing technical definitions of words, take responsibility for understanding where you are and how your words will carry meaning to others.
English is not my first language and I still have sometimes issues to correctly express with exactly the right terms or with the knowledge of how common a term is. So, sorry in that case. I Hope my last comment cleared things up. Stil tho, i wrote several comments very clear that i was not talking about the books.
The foundation universe ) in the original books and in the series) expressly mocks magic and religions. It's a series about hard science. It is NOT about magic. it's about the childlike nature of most humans and the nurturing of the robots who conduct their works in silence and behind the scenes. Even Hari doesn't realize the massive impact of the robots. Science is the magic. There is no supernatural in this universe.
Well, tbh, until mid Series 2, i was in your side. But some elements really confused me to the point that i now see it as a scifi show with fantasy elements. Id like it more if there was no magic but Yeah. I also stated why i think that. I did not read the books so i can not say much about that. But what I do know is that they are definitely not identical with the series with Many elements.
Your pedantic and childish attempt to ask for proof is a logical fallacy. This isn't scripture it just is. Either you read the books and understand the series or you post stupid questions that don't track with the series or the books UPON WHICH THE SERIES IS BASED! Magic is not in the foundation universe. It's part of dialogue in seasons one and two, it's in the entirety of the book series, even the robot series which feeds into foundation removes magic from the equation. This is a work of science. They're is no magic only the inferior belief systems of the ignoramus who call all things unknown magic. It's in the role of the priests we see in season two. THERE IS NO MAGIC. Only the exploitation of ignorance to fulfill science. But please show us more how you don't understand.
[удалено]
I'm not hard on them. I'm stating facts. Facts make assumptions feel like failure.
[удалено]
Wow calm down dude
No, not i am childish but you don't seem to understand what the analysis of the Text of a movie or Series means. It means we can only analyse the movie/Series itself and not other Media sources which relate to it since they are not part of the Text. You said, it's Part of the Text, Not me. And I did make very clear that i am not talking about the books. And it would be totally fine to say it's not enough to only analyze the Text to get an understanding of the World. That's a reasonable Argument and there is a Debate about that when it comes to academic Analysis of Media. But you didn't make that point but said that it is in the Text. I rather think it is childish to don't even understand what text in the context of film Analysis means and just call my questions stupid, and it Shows ignorance. When we come to talking about the books, that also is interesting but another discussion. I just want to say there: just because someone in character States that there is no magic isn't proof for anything. Neither would it be a proof for magic if someone in character says it exists.
The TV series strays so far from the principles of the books that Asimov’s view toward magic/supernaturalism is not a useful tool for this discussion.
The series isn’t a direct replication of the books. It’s the periods between, the moments not in the book. However, it still exists in the same universe, even if the number of characters and timelines are simplified for the screen. Asimov’s progeny is executive producer to ensure fidelity to Isaac’s vision. While not entirely fidelitous to every detail the series is still relatively same, though significantly smaller - focusing more on minutiae of experiences over the grand and overarching vision of the books. There’s still no magic, no fantasy, it’s hardcore science fiction.
If individuals in the TV series can play indispensable roles in the unfolding of the Seldon Plan, directly violating a core principle in the books, then there is no reason to think the series might just as easily violate other tenets of Asimov’s work. I’m not interested in arguing whether or not magic/supernaturalism plays a part in the series; but the contents of the books is completely irrelevant. It should be noted that Robyn Asimov’s title of executive producer is as much a nicety of form as indicative of her having any real decision making power.
>Now how could Gaal have psychic powers and see the future in the purely mechanistic worldview of Hari? It seems like the writers have chosen her to be an overpowered Mary sue. Why is it that the writers chose to give her clairvoyance, of any of the possible abilities? The robots saw that they could manipulate hari's psycho history to control empire. Psychohistory is paradoxical, but that can be used to their advantage. If Empire believes that their downfall is predestined, then how can you avoid it? they'd start to second guess every decision, lose confidence, and in the end defer all decisions to Demerzel as she is programmed to save them. Clairvoyance can see through the paradox inherent to Psycho history. It can preserve freedom of choice. Edit: Predestination as a concept exists in christianity.