Great reaction Wren! A lot of great moments in this one! Especially the conversations between Drummer and Ashford! Also absolutely love the scenes with Amos and Alex! I think you are correct about Miller and the hive mind. But it looks like Holden made a connection with him when talking about Julie. What the heck waa Holden seeing when completed the circuit! Looking forward to the next one!
When Bobbie and Holden are talking on the radio, he makes a distracted, off-hand comment about monkeys and microwaves, which is a nod to a passage in the book where holden is musing about the protomolecule on the flight to the station (no spoilers or plot details in the passage) "It killed humans, therefore it was a weapon. But radiation killed humans, and a medical X-ray machine wasn’t intended as a weapon. Holden was starting to feel like they were all monkeys playing with a microwave. Push a button, a light comes on inside, so it’s a light. Push a different button and stick your hand inside, it burns you, so it’s a weapon. Learn to open and close the door, it’s a place to hide things. Never grasping what it actually did, and maybe not even having the framework necessary to figure it out. No monkey ever reheated a frozen burrito."
Monkey's have been documented dipping potato into salt water to salt their potato's for flavour. Turns out salting your chips is not strictly a human thing.
Great reaction as usual, Wren. Always a pleasure hearing your perspective on these situations and characters. "This show is very good at giving you a little bit of answers and then introducing a whole bunch more questions." Couldn't have said it better. 😊 One of the reasons I absolutely love this show.
Well done. You definitely aren’t like any other reaction channels I’ve come across. And keep stating your opinion regarding religion or morality. It’s your channel and your thoughts we’re here for.
We're starting to get a bigger picture here, exciting! really enjoying your reaction as always! thanks for the thoughts! one thing about the other galaxies and universes as you called them, "Miller" said something about a bunch of locked doors. I may misread you, but I think the discipline thing is different from the 2 or 3. it is indeed the same section, but I think I can see a clear distinction between the verses 15-17 and 17-20. one is indeed about disputes between fellow believers, but the latter I believe is more about the power of a group praying for a common cause.
Remember one of the first interactions between Holden and Miller and Julie comes up and Miller says he doesn't want to talk about her. He probably can't because it's one of those subjects that exceeds his programmed boundaries where he's destroyed and remade. When Julie is brought up again inside the ring station, there's a delay and I believe it took a little time to reprogram Miller without those constraints and introduce the memories that would best manipulate Holden into achieving the PM's goals. The PM is a crafty devil. I love Miller's comparisons, Amoeba-calculus, Mozart-monkey.
The whole Anna/Nemeroff storyline is very different in the book (Abbadon's Gate*) in a way I think you would appreciate, or at least find interesting. * I believe the third book is the first one she was introduced in. She wasn't part of the previous storyline with the Secretary General/Errinwright- I think the show runners wanted to introduce the audience to her earlier and build up her role over time.
Regarding the religious angles: three different science fiction franchises: _Star Trek_ , _Babylon 5_ , and _The Expanse_ , all treat human religions of their time differently. As for timelines, Star Trek TOS and B5 are set in the exact same years (around 2260), The Expanse is set around 2307, and Star Trek TNG is set about a half a century after that. Star Trek mostly presents humans as moving beyond traditional religions. B5 has humans as still existing with traditional human religions but transformed by alien contact into being much less fundamentalist and more about tradition. The Expanse (TV show) mostly keeps religion as a thing for Anna, and the LDS. The LDS angle suggests that humans at the beginning of the 24th century are much like they are at the beginning of the 21st century, and Anna represents contemporary (to us) a modern liberal interpretation of Christianity (as found in some denominations today.)
We have seen some women Belters in what appear to be Muslim hijabs. Although the writer J. Michael Straczynski is himself an atheist, he presented religion in a fair manner, unlike Star Trek TNG, which was relentlessly anti-religious.
The rings lead to Solar Systems, or Systems. A galaxy is a huge collection of Systems. A universe is a huge collection of galaxies. I'm not sure how much to tie things together here - I don't want to rob you of the chance to put the pieces together for yourself. From what Dresden said, and the Miller Avatar has said, it seems like the ring in our system was meant to be completed by the Protomolecule, sent packaged up in Pheobe, billions of years ago, whilst the precursor race (usually called The Builders) had all the other rings open. Due to cosmic irony Pheobe, and it's Protomolecule cargo, got caught by Jupiter and stayed frozen in space instead of hitting earth and activating. So no, there wasn't a ring in our solar system previously. I guess you could say the prodigal child (this bit of Protomolecule) has returned? Nah, it doesn't really fit.
Pastor Anna is much more overtly religious in the books, holding regular prayer meetings with all the Methodists on the Thomas Prince. Book 3 is condensed into half a season, so much of the story had to be streamlined in the adaptation (the main significant loss perhaps being more development and back-story from Melba, but I quite like that she was a mystery for a while rather than us knowing who she was and why she was there. The actress does a good job with what little she is given). One of the two book authors was brought up by strongly evangelical parents. I'm sure he knows plenty about all that. It makes sense though that you just get a moral-but-flawed flavour character in the TV show rather than lots of specific religious dogma. I went to a friend's offspring's christening service at one of the more out-there denominations and it was very low on scripture and prayer and very high on feel-good factor (creepily so, actually. It felt like a venus fly-trap for the vulnerable), so I see no reason why even a Protestant church like the Methodists might not be similar 300 years in the future, especially given that overall in the world over the past century theism is on the decline and atheism and secularism are on the up. It's a reasonable projection.
What Anna said about the non-contradition of scripture and science is from a statement by Augustine. Augustine and Aquinas created a Christian concept of "free will" in response to the accusations of secular philosophers of their days that Christianity was deterministic. But our Christian free-will concept isn't the same thing as the secular philosophy concept of free will, a difference most Christians don't realize as we discuss free will. We aren't talking about the same thing. "Free" is an absolute concept...if there is _any_ kind of constraint, then it's no longer "free." Interestingly, secular philosophers today consider some level of determinism always exist...and it's only Christians today who talk about "free will." You're making some good connections with the information you have so far.
I wholeheartedly agree that the Bible and science, properly understood, do not contradict each other. For example: if I read, "The sun rose above him..." (Gen. 32:31) I don't automatically think, "Oh, those stupid people, don't they know that the earth rotates, and the sun doesn't rise?" The Bible is not a scientific treatise and uses idioms like all literature. As Galileo said, “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”
Science addresses the physical realm, God isn't physically so science can't fully explain God. But because God created the physical realm, He also created the rules that govern this physical realm; that is, science. We can explore science and learn about the natural world and through that learn about God. And because God is supernatural and outside the rules of nature He designed, He can break them--and that's what we call miracles.
@@WrensRamblings But when you say "God created the physical realm" that sounds like a claim that has not been established, and thus cannot be used as a premise in the rest of a logical statement. Furthermore, you say that science explore the natural world, yet god is supernatural. So how can something designed to study natural things to used to study something that is not natural? This seems like a contradiction.
That's the nature of faith: we can't know 100% for sure and we can't measure God, we can only measure what He has created. From my experience, what we can measure does point towards a creator. Seeing a painting suggests that someone painted it. Seeing the earth and moon and sun align in such exact size and distance and angle that we can experience a total eclipse suggests someone designed it like that. The Bible explains who that creator is.
@@PsychoMuffinSDM Science is a process that either proves or verifies models of the physical world. If we except the existence of God, we therefore have to accept nigh celebrate processes that would accurately model his creation.
@@phanomtaxskibididoodoo The problem is you have a big fat IF in there. What does that "If we except the existence of God" have anything to do with science? “Napoleon, when hearing about Laplace's latest book, said, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its creator.' Laplace responds, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. (I had no need of that hypothesis.)”
Don't shy away from being yourself. If you want to interject your religious beliefs into your analysis then that is quite fine with me. The only reason to watch reactions is to get different takes on the same material. That said, I wonder how you will change over the years; perhaps some things you believe today will change in 10 or 20 years.
It is a such a mashup of juvenile contrived emotional motivations and people who do not act like people. Very GenZ video game + poorly done fantasy novel. Oh, and a good dose of Dr. Who contrived elements where plot is based on characters never sharing what they have seen or know. I try to watch because I know so many people who do but I can't take more than 10 minutes at a time. People like this just don't exist.
@@no_no_just_no Yah. I particularly dislike plot based on people not communicating because of their various soap opera goals. Cheap writing and low cunning. I am quite surprised that the young generations, who are so understanding of cinema and story, will watch these things.
@@charlesspringer4709 I think i see where you might be coming from in respect to Holden not communicating to Bobby and the Martians. And the space ghost thing ...does seem contrived in context. The Martians are defiantly Dumb here, arguably they are trained to be and wouldn't be assured of Holden's "but only i can see or hear him". I think in any medium you can get away with a thousand sins so long as its in keeping with the world building, consistent logic and your own personal threshold. But is the writing really sub par to say the original series of Star Trek?
Just curious: if you can't take more than 10 minutes at a time, why are you more than 2 and half seasons deep into a reaction series about it? Seems a tad masochistic.
You might not be interested, but I don't see preaching here. Wren has a perspective on the world and that influences thoughts on the media she consumes which she is openly reflecting on. It is called Wrens ramblings after all. I feel suppressing aspects of discussion would in my opinion lead to less interesting content and in way be ... ' Disingenuous ' - in that the topics of philosophy (and theology) that are of interest don't get brought to light.
@@no_no_just_no Agreed. She discussed religious aspects and gave her opinions on things but didn't preach anything. And she did it all at the end of the video after the reaction so everyone is free to listen or not listen. And it's her channel, she is totally free to talk about whatever she wants anyway.
I say this as a _very_ non-religious person but...no one's forcing you to watch this. if you don't like it, you can just leave and not be a dick about it.
When I first watched this episode of _The Expanse_ it was a relief to finally get some answers and not just more questions.
Great reaction Wren!
A lot of great moments in this one! Especially the conversations between Drummer and Ashford! Also absolutely love the scenes with Amos and Alex!
I think you are correct about Miller and the hive mind. But it looks like Holden made a connection with him when talking about Julie. What the heck waa Holden seeing when completed the circuit!
Looking forward to the next one!
When Bobbie and Holden are talking on the radio, he makes a distracted, off-hand comment about monkeys and microwaves, which is a nod to a passage in the book where holden is musing about the protomolecule on the flight to the station (no spoilers or plot details in the passage)
"It killed humans, therefore it was a weapon. But radiation killed humans, and a medical X-ray machine wasn’t intended as a weapon. Holden was starting to feel like they were all monkeys playing with a microwave. Push a button, a light comes on inside, so it’s a light. Push a different button and stick your hand inside, it burns you, so it’s a weapon. Learn to open and close the door, it’s a place to hide things. Never grasping what it actually did, and maybe not even having the framework necessary to figure it out. No monkey ever reheated a frozen burrito."
Monkey's have been documented dipping potato into salt water to salt their potato's for flavour.
Turns out salting your chips is not strictly a human thing.
A chimp can learn fairly complex actions simply by observation. th-cam.com/video/QxYmm5yCJBg/w-d-xo.html
I knew somebody would post this. It's such a nourishing quote.
Great reaction as usual, Wren. Always a pleasure hearing your perspective on these situations and characters.
"This show is very good at giving you a little bit of answers and then introducing a whole bunch more questions." Couldn't have said it better. 😊
One of the reasons I absolutely love this show.
Remember what The Investigator told Holden in their first conversation. Every time it exceeds its boundary conditions, it is destroyed and replaced.
Well done. You definitely aren’t like any other reaction channels I’ve come across. And keep stating your opinion regarding religion or morality. It’s your channel and your thoughts we’re here for.
We're starting to get a bigger picture here, exciting!
really enjoying your reaction as always! thanks for the thoughts!
one thing about the other galaxies and universes as you called them, "Miller" said something about a bunch of locked doors.
I may misread you, but I think the discipline thing is different from the 2 or 3.
it is indeed the same section, but I think I can see a clear distinction between the verses 15-17 and 17-20. one is indeed about disputes between fellow believers, but the latter I believe is more about the power of a group praying for a common cause.
Next episodes in S3 are my favourite of the entire show.
Remember one of the first interactions between Holden and Miller and Julie comes up and Miller says he doesn't want to talk about her. He probably can't because it's one of those subjects that exceeds his programmed boundaries where he's destroyed and remade.
When Julie is brought up again inside the ring station, there's a delay and I believe it took a little time to reprogram Miller without those constraints and introduce the memories that would best manipulate Holden into achieving the PM's goals. The PM is a crafty devil.
I love Miller's comparisons, Amoeba-calculus, Mozart-monkey.
That’s exactly what I feel like is happening every time I see that scene.
Yes, I agree.
The whole Anna/Nemeroff storyline is very different in the book (Abbadon's Gate*) in a way I think you would appreciate, or at least find interesting. * I believe the third book is the first one she was introduced in. She wasn't part of the previous storyline with the Secretary General/Errinwright- I think the show runners wanted to introduce the audience to her earlier and build up her role over time.
Much in the same way that Chrisjen isn't in book one at all
Don’t explode in the ring near Uranus. It will clench and slow you down big time
Regarding the religious angles: three different science fiction franchises: _Star Trek_ , _Babylon 5_ , and _The Expanse_ , all treat human religions of their time differently. As for timelines, Star Trek TOS and B5 are set in the exact same years (around 2260), The Expanse is set around 2307, and Star Trek TNG is set about a half a century after that. Star Trek mostly presents humans as moving beyond traditional religions. B5 has humans as still existing with traditional human religions but transformed by alien contact into being much less fundamentalist and more about tradition. The Expanse (TV show) mostly keeps religion as a thing for Anna, and the LDS. The LDS angle suggests that humans at the beginning of the 24th century are much like they are at the beginning of the 21st century, and Anna represents contemporary (to us) a modern liberal interpretation of Christianity (as found in some denominations today.)
We have seen some women Belters in what appear to be Muslim hijabs. Although the writer J. Michael Straczynski is himself an atheist, he presented religion in a fair manner, unlike Star Trek TNG, which was relentlessly anti-religious.
The rings lead to Solar Systems, or Systems. A galaxy is a huge collection of Systems. A universe is a huge collection of galaxies.
I'm not sure how much to tie things together here - I don't want to rob you of the chance to put the pieces together for yourself.
From what Dresden said, and the Miller Avatar has said, it seems like the ring in our system was meant to be completed by the Protomolecule, sent packaged up in Pheobe, billions of years ago, whilst the precursor race (usually called The Builders) had all the other rings open. Due to cosmic irony Pheobe, and it's Protomolecule cargo, got caught by Jupiter and stayed frozen in space instead of hitting earth and activating. So no, there wasn't a ring in our solar system previously.
I guess you could say the prodigal child (this bit of Protomolecule) has returned? Nah, it doesn't really fit.
Pastor Anna is much more overtly religious in the books, holding regular prayer meetings with all the Methodists on the Thomas Prince. Book 3 is condensed into half a season, so much of the story had to be streamlined in the adaptation (the main significant loss perhaps being more development and back-story from Melba, but I quite like that she was a mystery for a while rather than us knowing who she was and why she was there. The actress does a good job with what little she is given).
One of the two book authors was brought up by strongly evangelical parents. I'm sure he knows plenty about all that. It makes sense though that you just get a moral-but-flawed flavour character in the TV show rather than lots of specific religious dogma.
I went to a friend's offspring's christening service at one of the more out-there denominations and it was very low on scripture and prayer and very high on feel-good factor (creepily so, actually. It felt like a venus fly-trap for the vulnerable), so I see no reason why even a Protestant church like the Methodists might not be similar 300 years in the future, especially given that overall in the world over the past century theism is on the decline and atheism and secularism are on the up. It's a reasonable projection.
Methodists are 'way out on the progressive end even now.
You're pretty quick! But you're not _exactly_ on target. Some mystery remains!
What Anna said about the non-contradition of scripture and science is from a statement by Augustine. Augustine and Aquinas created a Christian concept of "free will" in response to the accusations of secular philosophers of their days that Christianity was deterministic. But our Christian free-will concept isn't the same thing as the secular philosophy concept of free will, a difference most Christians don't realize as we discuss free will. We aren't talking about the same thing. "Free" is an absolute concept...if there is _any_ kind of constraint, then it's no longer "free." Interestingly, secular philosophers today consider some level of determinism always exist...and it's only Christians today who talk about "free will."
You're making some good connections with the information you have so far.
interesting, thanks
Don't want to spoil but something to think about, regarding Millers return... Look at Thomas Zanes character in the credits.
Or don't, and just let things happen. (But I know what you mean)
Is it a weapon?
Allahu akbar
I wholeheartedly agree that the Bible and science, properly understood, do not contradict each other. For example: if I read, "The sun rose above him..." (Gen. 32:31) I don't automatically think, "Oh, those stupid people, don't they know that the earth rotates, and the sun doesn't rise?" The Bible is not a scientific treatise and uses idioms like all literature. As Galileo said, “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”
Are you saying that all the miracle claims are just some kind of allegory?
"properly understood"
Science addresses the physical realm, God isn't physically so science can't fully explain God. But because God created the physical realm, He also created the rules that govern this physical realm; that is, science. We can explore science and learn about the natural world and through that learn about God. And because God is supernatural and outside the rules of nature He designed, He can break them--and that's what we call miracles.
@@WrensRamblings But when you say "God created the physical realm" that sounds like a claim that has not been established, and thus cannot be used as a premise in the rest of a logical statement. Furthermore, you say that science explore the natural world, yet god is supernatural. So how can something designed to study natural things to used to study something that is not natural? This seems like a contradiction.
That's the nature of faith: we can't know 100% for sure and we can't measure God, we can only measure what He has created. From my experience, what we can measure does point towards a creator. Seeing a painting suggests that someone painted it. Seeing the earth and moon and sun align in such exact size and distance and angle that we can experience a total eclipse suggests someone designed it like that. The Bible explains who that creator is.
You are correct. God and science are by definition compatible. It's ridiculous to claim that God would somehow be estranged to his creation.
Can you explain how they are compatible "by definition"?
@@PsychoMuffinSDM Science is a process that either proves or verifies models of the physical world. If we except the existence of God, we therefore have to accept nigh celebrate processes that would accurately model his creation.
@@phanomtaxskibididoodoo The problem is you have a big fat IF in there. What does that "If we except the existence of God" have anything to do with science?
“Napoleon, when hearing about Laplace's latest book, said, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its creator.'
Laplace responds, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. (I had no need of that hypothesis.)”
Don't shy away from being yourself. If you want to interject your religious beliefs into your analysis then that is quite fine with me. The only reason to watch reactions is to get different takes on the same material. That said, I wonder how you will change over the years; perhaps some things you believe today will change in 10 or 20 years.
or maybe your own beliefs will change?
It is a such a mashup of juvenile contrived emotional motivations and people who do not act like people. Very GenZ video game + poorly done fantasy novel. Oh, and a good dose of Dr. Who contrived elements where plot is based on characters never sharing what they have seen or know. I try to watch because I know so many people who do but I can't take more than 10 minutes at a time. People like this just don't exist.
The Expanse?
@@no_no_just_no Yah. I particularly dislike plot based on people not communicating because of their various soap opera goals. Cheap writing and low cunning. I am quite surprised that the young generations, who are so understanding of cinema and story, will watch these things.
@@charlesspringer4709 I think i see where you might be coming from in respect to Holden not communicating to Bobby and the Martians. And the space ghost thing ...does seem contrived in context. The Martians are defiantly Dumb here, arguably they are trained to be and wouldn't be assured of Holden's "but only i can see or hear him". I think in any medium you can get away with a thousand sins so long as its in keeping with the world building, consistent logic and your own personal threshold. But is the writing really sub par to say the original series of Star Trek?
Just curious: if you can't take more than 10 minutes at a time, why are you more than 2 and half seasons deep into a reaction series about it? Seems a tad masochistic.
"Very GenZ video game + poorly done fantasy novel." - you're like skipping 70 years of TV soap operas.
Way too much religious preaching this time. Please don't make a habit of it.
You might not be interested, but I don't see preaching here. Wren has a perspective on the world and that influences thoughts on the media she consumes which she is openly reflecting on. It is called Wrens ramblings after all. I feel suppressing aspects of discussion would in my opinion lead to less interesting content and in way be ... ' Disingenuous ' - in that the topics of philosophy (and theology) that are of interest don't get brought to light.
@@no_no_just_no Agreed. She discussed religious aspects and gave her opinions on things but didn't preach anything. And she did it all at the end of the video after the reaction so everyone is free to listen or not listen.
And it's her channel, she is totally free to talk about whatever she wants anyway.
"TH-cam needs more godlessness!" lol
Signed,
Not Really a Christian
I believe it’s her channel and she can discuss what she likes. It’s HER reaction.
I say this as a _very_ non-religious person but...no one's forcing you to watch this. if you don't like it, you can just leave and not be a dick about it.