Jump to content

Talk:Isaac Mendez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isaac's death

[edit]

Although it seems likely that Isaac is a Kurt Cobain analog, I don't think that he killed himself. The symbol that appears on the Indian guy's computer and Isaac's room was also found at the crime scene where the LAPD officer discovers his powers. Also, Isaac was killed in a similar way to the man at the crime scene--half his head sawed off, with his brains totally missing. I think that Isaac was murdered.

I know, I edited this information into the article, (where was it at the crime scenes, by the way the killer is named "Sellers"). -- Psi edit 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page 3 of the graphic novel #1 ("Monsters") on the NBC site calls him "Sylar". Closed Captions also used the "Sylar" spelling consistently. —Laserion 00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the name "Sylar" is on the tape Mohinder found in episode one. Also, the article erroneously claims that Isaac doesn't appear alive in this episode. I'm off to fix that. Hydragon 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was killed by Sylar, he cut his head open telekinetically & took his power, in episode 2 series 1, this is set in the future, about 5 weeks after the 'normal' story timeline.--J (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Wait, wait... are we ready to classify Issac as a Superhero? --DJ Chair 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems like a neutral character since he only wants to save soimone- Redspiderman

The Helix Symbol

[edit]

Why has all those painting of the helix symbol in Isaac's apartment five weeks ago not been mentioned? I saw it was earlier, but it seems ot have been deleted. Hydragon 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, for now. Until we get a handle on what the symbol is/means, if anything, I'd rather not invite speculation. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art work

[edit]

Split I suggest that we split this section to List of Isaac Mendez's art work. It might get very large and over come this article after just one season. This list already takes up a large amount of the article after just four episodes. --Pinkkeith 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. We don't need an entry for every little thing that he has in his apartment. EvilCouch 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not saying that everything in his apartment should be placed in a list, just his artwork. It is notable to the character since this is his power. --Pinkkeith 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. So far, all but a few paintings (glass filled with bubbling liquid) have been significant. Furthermore, I believe that the paintings are going to play a very large importance to the story. --DJ Chair 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree, I guess. The sectioning would certainly be easier. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the title Art work of Isaac Mendez, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think Powers and equipment of Isaac Mendez would be best. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, any title will be fine for me.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 12:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree The article isn't long enough (yet) that it needs to be split up. Why require the reader to make an additional mouseclick? Primogen 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the consensus favors the splitting of this page, but it obviously never happened. Do you guys think there have been enough paintings to warrant the splitting of Artwork of Isaac Mendez? We can take screenshots of the paintings and put them into a gallery.  Anticrash  talk  17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started Artwork of Isaac Mendez.  Anticrash  talk  18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin-induced precognition??

[edit]

I tend to think its just plain precognition because in Hiros Peter finished the painting, and wasn't on anything... EnsRedShirt 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac believes it's heroin-induced only and has not been able to paint without it. He's bound to test the theory, but as far as we know, he's right. Peter is a separate character and he how mimics other people's powers is irrelevant. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Heroes (TV series)

[edit]

I editted Isaac's power entry to 'Morphine-induced precognition'. Peter duplicated this power, when he was in the hospital in the second episode. Obviously, the hospital didn't give him heroin, but morphine's a possibility. In addition, heroin breaks down into morphine in the body, so it must be morphine that's doing the trick.64.247.206.184 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know FOR SURE that it's JUST morphine? For all we know, he could have a few Red Bulls and blackout and paint the future. he could have a bottle of Jaegermeister and do the same. He could smoke some weed and do it. Has the show or the creator of the show said implicitly that it is morphine-induced only? User:Rihk 19:25, 16, October 2006 (UTC)
Peter also drew the future. He didn't take heroin. He was in a hospital. Morphine is the logical link between Peter in his situation and Isaac's heroin.64.247.206.184 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, why does it have to just be the one drug that can trigger the ability? Who says it can't be triggered by ANY drug that alters his mental state? I think more information is needed before we can say for certain that morphine/heroin is narrowly responsible for the visions. Applejuicefool 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't to because it's the only time we've seen any precognition? Don't get me wrong, I'm open to leave it at precognition, but that would be speculating above and beyond what the characters know, and what the viewers know. --DJ Chair 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be speculating to say he has just "precognition", just as it would be speculating to say he has "morphine-triggered precognition". We know that morphine and/or heroin are triggers, but we don't know for certain that they are the only triggers. I think it's likely that the altered mental state is what actually triggers the precognition, not narrow chemical triggers related to one specific drug. Applejuicefool 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not drug enduced. This episode proves it, since neither character was on anything. Just because Isaac doesn't know this yet, doesn't make it not true.
Peter Petrelli doesn't need any kind of mental stimulation to see the future. Since he just copies Isaac's "superpower", we can ensure that Isaac thinks he needs the drugs, but it isn't true. He is blocked because he doesn't believe in his own habilities, so he needs heroin to free himself from his doubts. --KesheR 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That conclusion, which seems reasonable, coupled with the TV Guide citation, means that until such time as Isaac demonstrates that he can use the power without the drugs, it should, and will, stay as 'heroin-induced', despite the repeated attacks by a couple of GIPU editors. ThuranX 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation to say that Isaac has precognition -- there is ample evidence that he has that ability. The debate is whether that ability is influenced to any degree by drugs. I think that a detail such as this, which is still being argued by fans of the show, belongs, if anywhere, in the Isaac article. The activating agent of Isaac's precognition (whether actual, apparent, or formerly believed) doesn't belong in the main article, and certainly not in the table. Make it easy on the reader, and just say what Isaac's power is. Primogen 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, we tried that. The way I see it, the show is popular and there's always going to be some sort of conflict. If we tried to keep it as precognition now after all the time it was "heroin-induced", it'd be like we were saying it was only precognition. It's been stated in the cited TV Guide article, press releases, et cetera. It's considered a vital detail and removing it would seem like agreeing with the speculators. More importantly, a lot of these powers have extra details to them. Proximity-based power mimicry, split personality—which, by itself, is not a real superpower.—("with unknown powers"), etc. The last thing I'd want is to push for an unnecessary addition, but leaving out "Heroin-induced" is agreeing with them. Same thing with Claire's power. No compromise that I can see. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying take it out. I'm saying take it elsewhere. Put the whole heroin-induced thing in the Isaac article, where you can cite the facts: "In episode x, Issac experienced prognitiion when y, while in episode a, Issac experienced precognition when b". Or "Article d said e about Isaac's precognition." Primogen 00:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency and status quo are key. It can't be listed one way in one place and not another. Right in his HCB it says "Heroin-induced". That's part of the summary. I admit excessive detail isn't good, but this is the accepted summary of his powers. The only reason to change it now is if it was proven incorrect. That's not happened. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ace. Isaac hasn't used his ability without drugs. Peter Petrelli has, but that could be an effect of Peter's power, not Isaac's. Or it could be that the ability's user has to be relatively comfortable and pain-free - Isaac on drugs, Peter off. Whatever the case, it seems at this point that Isaac (not Peter) needs the drugs for his ability to operate. Applejuicefool 01:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Peters powers are like a leech. He can grab onto another persons powers for a short amount of time. For now, all we know is that Isaac can only see the future when he's high. Saying anything else at this point in the story is inaccurate. dposse 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should go change superman's powers to "Earth's Yellow Sun induced". I mean, its been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that superman is only powered as long as he has stored energy from the sun, so doesn't that mean that his powers only work because of the sun? shouldn't that be more important than just, i dunno, stating he has powers, and what they are? This arguement is stupid. Heroin induced precognition is not a superpower, precognition is a superpower, heroin induced is just a way of accessing the power. Sure, maybe isaac can't see the future without drugs, maybe he never will, but that doesn't mean his superpower is heroin-induced precognition. Also, the people who keep saying "hey, we don't know how peters powers work" we know he copies other peoples super powers and i am yet to see him copy "heroin-induced precognition". Now, its an article about a tv show, so get over your proprietous attitudes. WookMuff 12:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that we've now had two confirmed occasions of Isaac using his powers without heroin, I think it's fair to remove the "heroin-induced" qualifier. 66.25.120.166 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Solution

[edit]

Ok guys the revert war has to stop, here is the solution I am offering. For now lets leave at at Heroine induced pre-cognition. I have a strong feeling that in the comming weeks we will learn he doesn't need the heroine but untill that happens lets just leave it as is. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEROIN!! NOT HEROINE!!! ThuranX 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, X. Civility. It's a common mistake. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mistake we've addressed repeatedly. Illiteracy is a detraction to wikipedia, and editors who suffer from it bring wikipedia down. I have a hard time taking seriously someone who cannot even properly speak about the issue in question. It's like trying to take Pres. Bush seriously when he calls them 'nookyooler wepinz' and thinks he's smart. There. A civil reply explaining my position on the issue. ThuranX 03:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...kay. Thank you, X. Still, haven't we all made a spelling mistake now and then? Even I have in a few article edits. While I can understand your point, Argash's typing isn't the issue here. And I'm sure your...um...assertive voicing of your opinion will stir him into typing more accurately. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is unknown whether or not Issacs powers are drug induced, people should not assume one way or the other. His powers should not be listed as, "Precognition[8] (currently Heroin-induced)", but as "Precognition[8] (possibly Heroin-induced)". It is not a good idea to assume things that are not known for sure. Using "possibly" instead of "curently" shows that we do not have all the facts surrounding his power. If more information is revealed in the future it can be updated once there is proof one way or the other. arrow61095 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...there is proof. Are you new? He's been using heroin for weeks. It's cited. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what that he uses heroin (which I never denied, because I have watched every show so far). There is no proof that the usage of the heroin is connected to the precognition. I ate an apple today, I also walk - That doesn't mean that apples cause me to walk. Maybee the heroin is connected to the precognition, maybee not - there is no way for you to know. It is ignorant to assume that just because a theory fits the facts, that the theory is correct. There is a good enough possibility that Issac simply thinks that the heroin is what makes him see the future because it gives him an excuse to use (People with addictions tend to believe anything that will give them an excuse to stay addicted). It all comes down to - "YOU DON'T KNOW", so you think Issac's preminitions are "heroin induced" - that is your opinion, but it is not fact and thus should not be in the article as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry (based on fact) and not someone's blog (based on opinion). arrow61095 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a flaw in your logic. You probably have been able to walk without eating apples, but Isaac has never been able to see the future without using heroin. Now, correlation is not causation, but Isaac says that he needs to use heroin to see the future, and until the show or other official source tells us otherwise, then that's what the facts are. It may be that he will later be able to the see future without using heroin, but that hasn't been the case so far. Primogen 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what, Issac would say he was the president of the United States if he thought it could enable him to get/use more heroin or give him an excuse. And, as you said correlation is not causation, so isn't it better to admit that the precognition is "possibly" heroin induced rather then saying that it is definatelly heroin induced and having to change it later if you are proved wrong. There is no fact or hard evidence that it is heroin induced (aka The writers of the show did not come out and say it or post it on the official website). Also, the fact that peter did not need to use heroin when he used Issac's power leaves more reasonable doubt. There are many possibilities. But saying that Issac's precognition is definatelly heroin induced is like when our ancestors claimed that the world was flat (they came to that conclusion based on several correlations too), you are making a judgement without all of the facts. I am simply saying that the article's contents should be based on fact not correlation. arrow61095 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reporting on a TV show, I think it's reasonable to use characters' own descriptions of themselves as authoritative sources without needing outside, secondary sources as confirmation. For example, if a TV character claims to like vanilla ice cream or knows how to play the harmonica, it's reasonable to report that as factual information about a character without adding qualifiers like "possibly". I understand your position that Isaac might lie to get heroin, but that doesn't mean that he is indeed lying. And while I believe that we'll eventually learn that he doesn't really need heroin to see the future, that's pure speculation on my part. What matters is whether we are accurately reporting what has happened in the show thus far, and at this point, the show has consistantly portrayed him as requiring heroin to see the future, and nothing else contracts that. On the other hand, I favor dropping "heroin induced" entirely from the infobox as being unnecessary detail (after all, we don't say Hiro's ability is "wince-induced time manipulation", nor did Eden find it necessary to specify Isaac as being a "heroin-induced precog" to Mr. Bennet) so long the body text makes it clear that heroin usage thus far has been a prerequisite for Isaac's abilities. Primogen 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not change the terminology, either. We've tried that and it never seems to work out. Plus, TV Guide used the words "Heroin-induced" just like we are now. Writing it in parenthesis or with qualifers like "currently", "possibly", "usually", et cetera isn't a great idea. And the slightly exaggerated facial expressions or physical reactions/conditions the others might have don't count the same way. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather go with heroin-induced precognition rather than saying it's possibly heroin-induced. As Prime said, correlation is not causation. When Issac takes the heroin, he goes into his trance-like, glossed eyes state, and only AFTER he takes the heroin (so far). Peter got it without using, but that's probably a side-effect of Peter's proximity power. The fact that TV Guide has gone with it as well practically confirms it is heroin-induced. Until we know more, I say we keep it heroin-induced precognition. -- 142.222.98.128 20:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agh... that was me. Sorry. -- Doran 20:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no proof that Peter not having to use the heroin is part of his power of mimicry. Is it possible-yes-but so are a lot of things. As for "The fact that TV Guide has gone with it as well practically confirms it is heroin-induced." - Because we all know that media never gets anything wrong (look up the Sago Mine disaster). As far as the character descriptions in that particular TV guide, I did not see any direct refrence to the writers of the show. It looked more like something that someone extrapolated from a show description. Example: Writer at TV Guide reads --"In the first episode of Heroes, Issac Mendez is able to paint the future while he is using Heroin." -- Writer needs to describe the powers of the different heroes for an upcoming issue and in an attempting to make the descriptions more concise writes "herion induced precognition" which is descriptive of the times (so far) that we have seen Issac use his power on screen, but is inaccurate in that it biases readers into believing that there is no possible way that Issac could see the future if he were not on heroin. arrow61095 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, that's what we know to be true, reinforced by Isaac's own words. Should this turn out to be proven incorrcct, the information will be changed. However, we are not going qualify, second guess or weaselized the current information. Wikipedia presents facts. Being wrong is better than being afraid to claim correctness. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. Since I believe that encyclopedias should only contain proven facts. --I would not be very happy if I looked something up in an encyclopedia only to find out later that it was wrong; I would rather know from the beginning that the source may or may not be dubious.-- And as far as questioning, I agree with Arthur C. Clarke, "I don't pretend we have all the answers. But the questions are certainly worth thinking about." arrow61095 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In specific regards to this discussion, I was most concerned with the fact that the words "herion induced" describing Issac's precognition may bias people into believing it is not possible that Issac could be able to see the future without using herion (which has not been proven one way or the other yet). While I do recognize that there are certain issues with using "weasel words", I believe that writing the article from a Neutral point of view is every bit as important. arrow61095 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's it. This article, like any Wikipedia-quality entry, is written NPOV. Insinuations otherwise are not appreciated. The requirement of heroin has been proven, even if not to your satisfaction. As data changing, it happens. Especially when dealing with fiction, one cannot assume everything is set in stone. Comic books, retcons, misdirects, plot twists. Even an encyclopedia article cannot be expected to, say, do what Isaac does. The Spider-Man 3 could not have been expected to list Venom as a confirmed character back in May, 2006. Now, I think I'm done. Something about baseless accusations always seems to sour me on a conversation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Spiderman 3 reference makes me beleive that you may be misunderstanding something. There would be no problem with Venom not being listed back in May 2006 as a confirmed character as this would be unknown and not printed. The problem would be if they listed Carnage as a confirmed character back in May 2006, and then you find out later that he isn't going to be in the movie. This creates a problem because it was printed before anyone knew if it was true or not. As far as this article point is concerned, all I am asking is that all conflicting views on this subject are presented in the article and the Reader is allowed to make their own informed decision after realizing the possible media bias from the TV Guide article not being a direct reference of the writers of the show and the possible bias of a heroin addict claiming he needs heroin. I realize that the bias of a heroin addict wanting heroin may be easily recognized by readers of an average intelligence, but the possible media bias of the TV guide issue could easily by missed by someone who either does not have the TV Guide issue or has it and tends to believe that everything they read is straight from the creators of heroes' mouths. If these details are somewhere in the article and I just happened to miss them, I sincerely apologize. arrow61095 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Arrow. Dude, let's just have it as "precognition". That's wat better. Plus, it's not really saying his powers can't be heroin-induced. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until he figures out that he can see the future without using heroin, not adding that fact is mis-stating the nature of his powers. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not adding is preferrable to adding something that may or may not be wrong. It did not say it was not heroin induced. I do truely believe that the only way to stop this "Reversion War" is to represent both viewpoints (View 1:that it is heroin induced, View 2: that we do not know for sure yet and thus should not tell people that it is because we may be wrong) in the article in accordance with the Neutral point of view and let each individual reader decide, otherwise people will just keep changing back and forth. --arrow61095 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both the show and that TV Guide magazine article about the show present only one point of view: that Isaac's precognitive abilities are heroin induced. The only ones presenting a different point of view are various Wikipedia editors (including myself), but it is against Wikipedia policy to present our own point of views here -- that is best done on another website such as a fan forum. That the show may later reveal that Isaac's precognition is not heroin-induced after all should not be a cause of concern, as this article should only cover what has actually happened in the show thus far and what authoritative sources (including newspapers and magazines, regardless of their inherent bias) reveal what the future plans for the show are. Now, if you can cite a reference that suggests the precognition is not heroin-induced after all, then that's another matter. But all I'm seeing here is people expressing their own opinions, experiences, deductions, and fears. Primogen 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primogen hit the nail on the head. Unless you can find some proof that he can use his powers without using heroin, and citing Peter's ability to do so is just conjecture since he mimics powers, then you're just guessing. The article already notes he'll attempt ti, but nowhere does it say that he'll succeed. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbling Liquid Painting

[edit]

From the new trailer on NBC's website, it appears to be Isaac that is causing it to bubble, while he is being detained or something.ParalysedBeaver 04:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until the episode airs tonight before adding that to the article. Promos may contain misleading information, or may present unrelated clips next to each other. --Psiphiorg 13:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt gonna add to it until i knew for sure that it was him and that it is in the next episode.83.70.109.171 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, apparently this was a remnant of the unaired version of the pilot where "The Engineer" who could cause his hands to shed radiation boiled a cup of water while handcuffed. They re-used many of these elements for Theodore Sprague. Rihk 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uluru

[edit]

Uluru is the Pitjantjatjara people's name for the Australian Tourist Attraction Ayer's Rock, a large solitary rock formation in the centre of Australia. Maybe its my inherent Australocentric POV, but a giant rock monster named Uluru just seems to say "Include this". But i won't, because its totally OR and POV. But if anyone could think of a way to like add this in the uluru section just as like trivia, not claiming any connection, that would be awesome. WookMuff 09:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no connection, then it's not notable enough to add, even as trivia. However, if there is a connection, then evidence of that connection will probably turn up in time, so that it can be added. Primogen 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool cool, like i said the only connection i can see (and its totally speculative) is that uluru appears to be a giant rock monster. But yeah, i am interested in seeing if there IS a conncetion, get some aussies in there with the japanese indian and american of it all WookMuff 05:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro vs The dinosaur

[edit]

In Isaac's painting of Hiro and the dinosaur doesn't already come to pass in Godsend? Here are the photos to compare just use this link http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/froggerzero/detail?.dir=b156re2&.dnm=7d64re2.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.79.159 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shouldn't Isaac's painting of Hiro and the dinosar comes to pass in Godsend?

I don't think so, due mostly to the sword appearing to be unsheathed, but thats just my opinion. But yeah, i think that we should wait and see on this front. WookMuff 07:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Painting paradox

[edit]

Should it be mentioned somewhere that some of the events Isaac depicts in his paintings/sketches only happen because he drew them? Namely the girl getting hit by the bus, Peter jumping off the roof, the paintings of Peter in Texas, both of Hiro's 9th Wonders and Isaac and Simone embracing on her father's rooftop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWarriorStill (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I speak for several people here when I say - Huh? How did Isaac drawing Peter influence Peter to jump off a roof? Padillah 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because after he stared at the painting he went up to a rooftop, thought for a while, and then jumped off. And earlier when Nathan told him to jump off a bridge, Pete said said he should "start off with something smaller, like learning to walk." The girl who got hit by a bus got hit because she freaked out and ran away after she saw the painting at a gallery. Pete wouldn't have even known to go to Texas if he didn't see the painting of his death. Hiro and Ando tried to stop the girl from getting hit by a truck, but the only reason it almost hit her was because Ando tried to stop it, and then they flew to LA in coach, got a Nissan Versa and headed for Las Vegas all because the comic said so. In Five Years Gone, Mohinder killed the Haitian because he read it in the comic. Isaac and Simone both went to the roof after they saw the painting of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWarriorStill (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are casual, not causal. Besides, Sylar didn't impersonate Nathan and stand next to his desk because he saw Isaak's painting. Hiro wasn't spooked by the dinosaur in the museum because he saw the painting. There are several examples of Isaak's paintings not influencing outcomes. That characters believed in his power and trusted what the paintings showed does not mean the paintings caused the things to happen. But, then again, that's why it's a paradox. Padillah 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said some of the paintings caused the events depicted, not all. How are most of my examples not causal?AWarriorStill 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would have to get into a discussion of whether knowledge of a future outcome affects a persons response to that outcome and is WAY past the scope of this discussion page.
We'd have to discuss whether, when Isaac saw the future, he saw the true future or the "unaffected" future. And if he saw the unaffected future is that really "seeing" the future (I can tell the unaffected future, "I'm going home at 3:30 today" but does that count? I could get hit by a car.) And if Isaac tells me I'm going to get hit by a car do I drive differently and thus cause my own accident. (i.e. Matrix: Breaking the Vase)
Like I said, WAY out of the scope of this talk page.
As for referencing the phenomenon I suppose there's cause but we'd have to find a citation for the phenomenon and make sure we simply mention that this is a phenomenon of Precognition and, like you mentioned above, it doesn't always happen or help. I think something like this should be referenced in Hiro's page as well because his power suffers from a similar phenomenon. Padillah 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to watch for in the future

[edit]

There's not enough yet to be notable enough for the article, but it could be significant that one of the Group of 12 is named Carlos Mendez. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennyforth (talk • contribs) 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on real-life psychic painter?

[edit]

Anyone know if this character was based on real life psychic painter, David Mandell? Here's some info:

  1. The psychic dreams of David Mandell
  2. David Mandell's Psychic Paintings
  3. An investigation into precognitive dreaming: David Mandell - the man who paints the future?

Thoughts? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isaac Mendez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_Mendez&oldid=1200697466"