Theoretical Science: Super-senses

Tags

analysis, daredevil, marvel's daredevil, theoretical science

During my hiatus (sorry about the hiatus, by the way), I finally got the chance to watch Daredevil, Marvel’s 2015 Netflix hit.

 

It wasn’t until Season 2 that my willing suspension of disbelief started to wane.

In an early episode of Season 2, someone tests to see if Matt is actually blind by checking for pupil contraction. Now, this is a bad test for blindness–pupil contraction is a reflex, meaning it pretty much goes on, even if the visual cortex (part of the brain associated with sight) is damaged. As long as you’ve got an optic nerve, your pupils will contract when there’s bright light in your face. (This is my understanding; I’m not an expert.)

Not all blindness occurs from damage to the eyes. (No wonder the Yakuza never get anywhere if they’re this stupid.)

However, later in the same season, Matt gets shot with an arrow and there’s a close-up of his eyes dilating. I’m calling bull on this one. If his pupils don’t contract in bright light, why would they dilate as a response to pain? Either his optic nerves aren’t damaged or they are. Seriously, Marvel. Consistency. Heard of it?

I’m going with the instance when Matt’s pupils failed to contract as that’s an actual plot point, not just something someone thought would look cool.

Hence, we can proceed on the assumption that the accident Matt was in as a child, giving him superpowers, resulted in (absolutely) damage to his optic nerves and (probably) damage to his eyes, as well.

It’s possible that Matt also suffered a head injury during the accident, damaging the visual cortex–but, since the nerves are, apparently, damaged, that’s mere speculation with no actual canon foundation.

On to his actual powers.

Matt’s powers are rooted in the fact that his brain doesn’t filter out seemingly extraneous sensory data.

In plain English, all of us could have supersenses, but to avoid crippling confusion and becoming overwhelmed, our brains filter out all the thousands of sensory impressions that aren’t immediately relevant.

Matt most likely has a sensory processing disorder–his variant is he experiences everything without a filter, which is where Stick comes in. Stick taught Matt how to manage all that data and assemble it into a coherent picture. It takes intense focus to not become overwhelmed.

It’s possible that the sensory processing disorder was caused by a head injury. Alternately, Matt may have had some form of SPD and it was exacerbated by the accident. (Don’t quote me on this. Again, not an expert.)

I can’t say if Matt’s senses are actually more perceptive than the average human’s (Stan Lee says they are, I think?), but his brain certainly doesn’t seem to filter out all the data most people would not experience because it wasn’t prioritized in their brain.

Matt also appears to have a nearly-eidetic memory (in the comics and to an extent in the show.) This, again, could have been something he had before the accident, but didn’t really notice until after.

(Some fans believe that Matt is autistic. I lean that way a bit, but I don’t know enough about it to actually have an opinion.)

If Matt’s visual cortex wasn’t damaged, it’s possible that he adapted to his blindness and his brain sort of repurposed itself to route some of the sensory data through there. (Humans’ ability to recover and adapt is insane, y’all.)

If we take the toxic-waste-enhanced element (and possibility to hear heartbeats–I don’t know if people can do that in real life…) away, Matt’s powers absolutely have an analog in the real world. Whether or not Matt’s senses are actually enhanced to an insane degree (like Stan Lee asserts), Matt’s powers are a tribute to the incredible degree to which people can adapt to things.

If anything in this post was in error, please let me know and I’ll correct it. Hopefully you all enjoyed my analysis!

Advertisement

Theoretical Science: Nature vs. Nurture?

Tags

ahsoka tano, character design, character development, rebels, science, star wars, the clone wars, theoretical science

Back when Star Wars: The Clone Wars was still running, viewers who watched the supernatural-themed storyline known as “The Mortis Arc” to fans saw this version of Ahsoka:

Yet, in Star Wars: Rebels, we see this:

I think we can safely pass this off to a character redesign after Disney came in… or that version of Ahsoka on Mortis is still in the future… but seriously!? What gives?

It’s possible that the version of Ahsoka in the future we saw on Mortis was a version that belonged to a future where the Jedi Order was not destroyed and the Rebels version is the result of Anakin turning to the Dark Side.

Basically, Anakin’s turn destroyed the possibility of the future that that Ahsoka belonged to. (That theory is borne out by the appearance of Rebels Ahsoka: the shapes of her face are harsher and sharper, to fit a colder future.)

But if you look at Ahsoka, she really looks very different in between the two versions. Not only is the Rebels version less Shaak Ti, but her costume has changed as well; it now appears to be a close-fitting sheath dress with a chest piece and “kama”, or short kilt made of blast resistant fabric, as well as the central tabard that has remained a part of her look ever since the very beginning:

(That purple thing? That’s the tabard.)

You can see that they’ve been shifting towards a less-orange, more vital look for her skin, but her coloration seems paler in Rebels, even compared to the “Season Three Look”.

This leads me to think that Togruta (Ahsoka’s species) tend to grow as influenced by their outside surroundings, and that the Ahsoka we saw on Mortis belonged to a kinder future.

If you look closely at her, it’s clear she’s the same character, but her personality and appearance have been changed by the situations around her.

(Irisbloom5 has suggested that the Ahsokas we saw were at different points in their life span, which is hard to verify, since the vision version of Ahsoka has longer montrals (the blue and white part of her head; according to Wookiepedia, the montrals are a sensory organ that has to do with spatial awareness; a bit like echolocation, maybe an ultrasonic sense) but a body form that doesn’t look quite like an adult’s, unlike the Rebels version, which has shorter montrals, but a more adult body form. I’m not certain if this is true, though it is likely–Togruta are supposed to have a roughly 95-year life span, which is greater than the 72-year average for humans, so it’s possible that they age differently as well.)

Sorry this was less of a theoretical science post and more of a ramble on character design changes, but it made me curious. 😉 I’m a writer. My mind works like that. 😛

As always, thanks for reading, and God Bless!

Truly Geek Fandoms

Tags

controversy, fan stuff, fandoms, history, intellectualism, j.r.r. tolkien, lord of the rings, science, stereotypes, theoretical science

Erin is back for another rant about fandoms!

This is not actually about what you normally think when you hear the word “fandom”, though. It’s actually more of a closed-circuit phenomenon, really…

What am I talking about? (Have I lost my readers already? Oh, dear. Your pardon, readers all.)

Basically, this is the most stereotyped fandoms out there that I’m talking about. Drum roll, please–

I’m talking about fandoms that are better known as “school subjects,” “study projects,” and “general education courses.”

Now, I know you’re all thinking, “Whaaaat? is Erin nuts?” I can assure you… well, actually I can’t. 😛 But anyways, no, I do know what I’m talking about.

I’m passionate about theoretic science, partly through my interest in science fiction. (Which is why I think that vampires are lazy and if a zombie apocalypse does really happen, your biggest survival tool will be bug spray, you will need to take carefully-stored-and-preserved iodine supplements, and mosquitoes will be your biggest enemy. I may explain why in another post.)

Iris is passionate about American history. (So am I, for that matter. In fact, I’m passionate about most history!) And aren’t we all passionate about literature and media? Don’t we all get into arguments about bias in the media? And don’t most fandoms originate in books? We’re also passionate about culture, sociology, and psychology. Not to mention that Iris and I are advocates of algebra.

Basically, I’m saying that we need to redefine the word “fandom” and re-think the use of the word “geek.” Even someone who self-professedly “doesn’t like to think” can be a geek. Even someone who isn’t permanently heart-broken by the end of The Lord of the Rings can be in a fandom. All of us have the potential for intellectualism. Why don’t we delete the stereotypes surrounding it and just embrace it?

Just some thoughts for back to school. 😉