Why I Believe in the Supernatural

What was lightning to the ancient Greeks? It was the power of Zeus, symbolic of his rule over the Olympian gods.

Today we know lightning is not a supernatural phenomenon. It is electricity. The same force of nature we use to power practically everything within our world. Looking back, we can see how every force of nature we’ve come to understand, and harness, at one point was believed to be a supernatural phenomenon.

This is in part why, when we speak of the so-called supernatural phenomenon today, ESP, visions, etc, they should not be discounted as mental inventions or deemed ungrounded in reality. They are just not grounded yet. They are our lightning.

To think we understand the world around us is not only arrogant, but also naïve. While some phenomenon might be inventions of our own imagination, to discount any re-occurring “forces” because science has yet to understand them undermines the pursuit of science itself. 

For example, consider déjà vu. It is the feeling of familiarity with the events of a certain situation, as if you’ve seen them before. Often times people say they’ve dreamt of the events taking place, sometimes years ago, and only now while the event is occurring, are they making the connection.

The phenomenon has been discounted as a “delay” in neuronal processing. In layman’s terms, we see the event happen but our brain processes the events one millisecond too slow, making us feel as if we are reliving the event a second time. This hasn’t been proven 100%, and doesn’t explain why some individuals can make distinctions between how long ago they “dreamt” of the event. Some moments of déjà vu can feel like they occurred two weeks ago, others years.

More elusive, and more astonishing, is the idea of global consciousness. A bigger version of the “someone’s watching me” feeling. Check out this video on the The Global Consciousness Project, an initiative to test for what many Jedi have called “the force”. While what is being measured doesn’t equate to moving cars with your mind, it does provide strong statistical evidence about a weak natural force that spans across the consciousness of all humanity.

For over a decade, 35 random number generators, which pick between 0 and 1, randomly, have been running in several different locations across the globe. Statistically speaking, over a large sample size, we would expect the number of 0’s to be about 50% of all the numbers randomly chosen and vice versa. However, in events of major global effect, where millions of people are focusing on one singular occurrence – 9/11 for example – the number generators have all shown major skewness favoring one number over the other. So much skewness that the likelihood that these sudden spikes in the data are random is one in a billion.

Thus, the experiment points to an unknown human connection that spans the globe, something that is weak, but probably exists. While there are skeptics to the experiment, the fact that such changes have even been recorded cannot go unnoticed.

It is experiments like these, the kites flown in a thunderstorm, that turn the supernatural into the natural, and the natural into the harness-able. As such I refuse to call certain supposed phenomenon “supernatural,” because decades from now, there may not be anything super about it. Instead, it is the “futurenatural,” a natural force waiting to be discovered. 

To say that the supernatural does not exist, because it is impossible, is ignoring the long history of humankind, where the forces of today were the supernatural of yesterday. It is only within the context of our history as a species do we understand the future of our kind, and our current ideas as nothing more than a temporary belief-set trapped within a small time interval that is our momentary existence.

How much would you pay...for the universe?

To feel the passion of Neil deGrasse Tyson through quotes alone would do him, and his message, a great injustice. Before delving further into this essay, one must understand, and feel, his belief to make sense of his work as a public intellectual, and his impact. Below is a list of three links, small youtube sensations, each only a few minutes long. 

Spare ten minutes, and watch them. Then we will begin. 

We Stopped Dreaming (Episode 1)

We Stopped Dreaming (Episode 2)

The Most Astounding Fact

Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't your normal astrophysicist. He doesn't see science as science, a facet of society reserved for an intelligent minority, focused in sealed laboratories. He sees science as a culture, and brings to life a variety of different elements; emotion, inspiration, and education - parts of science you don't have to be an astrophysicist to appreciate and value. 

Born the same week as the birth of NASA, he has shared a lifetime with an organization he has come to hold dear. As one of the most publicized proponents for the space exploration program, Neil deGrasse Tyson has testified in front of the U.S. senate and was appointed to the committee for space exploration under president George W. Bush. But this alone, doesn't make him a public intellectual. For that we must understand both the "public" portion and the "intellectual" portion. 

The latter, it seems, is quite obvious. Publishing a variety of research papers in both the astronomical journal and astrophysical journal since 1995 - deGrasse's work in academia is clear. Earning a BA in physics from Harvard (where he was named 100 most influential alumni) and a Phd in astrophysics from Columbia, Tyson is well endowed with impressive credentials. He was appointed to NASA's advisory council and currently serves as an astrophysicist and Frederick P. Rose director of the Hayden Planetarium as well as a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History (a department he founded and led from 1997-1999). 

The public part of Tyson has had a concurrent existence to his professional success. Aside from being named sexiest astrophysicist alive in 2000 (People Magazine), he was also recognized for his service to public awareness by NASA, which awarded him the exceptional public service medal, and by the International Astronomical Union, which named an asteroid 13123 Tyson, in his honor. He has also written actively for a variety of public publications, including the New York Times, Natural History Magazine, and Parade Magazine. In addition he has been featured in many chapters and fore words in novels or textbooks such as "Science and Religion: Are they compatible”, “The Invisible Future: The Seamless Integration of Technology with Everyday Life”, and “The Cosmic Perspective”.

What is even more impressive, however, are his own novels, starting with his first in 1989, "Merlin's Tour of the Universe", which answered questions in layman's terms about the cosmos. As a trend, most of his novels are meant for the common public. For example, his novel "One Universe, at home with the cosmos", which connects the technology of space travel with our everyday items, is a detailed elaboration on the connection between NASA and its affect on the American future as a technologic superpower. His drive to reach the public even extends to schoolchildren, where he spent time illustrating his role in the Pluto controversy in his novel “The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet”.

His most recent novel published in February of 2012 called “Space Chronicles, Facing the Ultimate Frontier”, focuses on the complications behind the We Stopped Dreaming youtube videos. In the novel Tyson highlights the geo-political issues plaguing the science program, and how these forces have, as he puts it - destroyed tomorrow. 

But what really makes him a public intellectual is his most recent work in media. Tyson has narrated several documentaries and guest starred in numerous TV shows with the likes of Jimmy Fallon, Jay Leno, Conan O’Brian, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, and John Stewart (Watch: Stephen Colbert Interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson). A common trend here is the comedic aspect, a method for reaching the masses that Tyson has actively pursued. Relying on colloquialism and humor to make science "fun", Tyson's podcast StarTalk draws on celebrity guests to discuss the universe in a way that makes science interesting to those who never cared much for the scientific field. 

In addition to StarTalk, Tyson has also been the host and executive editor for three space-related TV shows. The most recent, currently in production, is a series called COSMOS: A Space-Time Odyssey, which will air in 2013. In a time where public intellectuals, according to an essay by Stephen Mack, are losing influence in the public square, it seems Tyson is the one expanding glacier. This must be, in large part, to the type of public intellectual Tyson strives to be.

According to Mack’s essay "The Cleric as Public Intellectual", many public intellectuals employ religious verbiage as a way to build cultural walls, to create a “virtue of alienation” that attracts audiences looking to belong or identify. In essence, purity, or at least perceived purity, is a virtue. Tyson, on the other hand, is blatantly anti-religion (Watch: The Erosion of Progress by Religion). He also holds different virtues than that of the religious public intellectual. While clerical public intellectuals emphasis a deep religious sensibility, Tyson hold a deep faith in human progress. Progress is his virtue. Rather than creating a sense of “special” that builds on alienation, Tyson creates a sense of special that builds on similarity. On everyone belonging to the same thing – the cosmos. For example, in the video We Stopped Dreaming (Episode 2) he states, "we discovered Earth - I claim - for the first time", emphasizing a lack of borders, and specialness in being part of a bigger world.

In Mack’s second essay, "Are Public Intellectuals a Thing of the Past?", John Donatich illustrates the public as childlike, in need of public intellectuals as leaders. Tyson, on the others hand, does not see himself as a leader, nor does he see the people as childlike. He simply sees them as people that have lost their faith in progress. Like other public intellectuals, his main concern is if society is doing enough to nurture and sustain public intellectuals, specifically future doctors, engineers, and physicists. His work is not impulse control, as Donatich emphasizes, it is directed impulse. NASA was an impulsive, curious, forward thinking organization, and that is something Tyson hopes to reestablish. Tyson’s value platform is still spiritual, but not in a religious sense. It is a spiritual culture that is based not on the afterlife, but on tomorrow, a culture rooted in education and technology.

In the latter half of Macks’ essay, Jean Bethke Elstein offers a more secular view of public intellectuals. She states that public intellectuals act as “puncture mythmakers”. While Tyson does indirectly puncture myths regarding NASA and space faring, he doesn’t “need” to, as Elstein states. Instead he creates a new viewpoint, a new myth perhaps, that highlights the pipeline between youthful dreaming, youthful ambition, and the existence of NASA.

Elstein continues her description of the public intellectual by stating that the ultimate function of the public intellectual is to be a critical party pooper, by removing idealism and “run-amok enthusiasm”. Tyson, however, is quite the opposite. His approach is more in line with Mack’s last sentence, "The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they're hearing things worth talking about." 

Tyson is an effective public intellectual, not only because his repertoire supports both the public and the intellectual sides of his personality, but also because he is able to state his vision in a way that attracts listeners. He takes NASA, space, and astronauts and connects them with culture, economics, dreaming, perspective, and the future of America – all of which are concepts or philosophies that hit every citizen at home, in the heart. In fact, the videos above are mostly idealistic, the same run-amok enthusiasm Elstein warns against.

Finally, Elstein’s main point is that "if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it's not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom - and it's certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power." When it comes to Neil deGrasse Tyson, I disagree. While I agree Tyson might not be particularly smarter than the public, I do think he is uniquely blessed with certain wisdom. The ability to see things from a different perspective. In effect his fovea centralis (to tie into the theme of this blog) is different from ours. Congress, for example, has mental myopia. They can't see the big picture, the future, or connect the worldwide effects of a space program, which Tyson is able to connect in the We Stopped Dreaming (Episode 2) to several different public policies, from animal protection to unleaded gas.

This different perspective is also clear in the simple questions he asks. For example, when discussing intelligent design, Tyson doesn’t argue against intelligent design as a concept. Instead he asks if there is an intelligent design than what is considered stupid design? Because, in his opinion, eating and breathing from the same orifice is stupid design – it leads to several thousand deaths a year, at least. If humans were made by an intelligent being capable of artificial creation, then why are there so many “stupid” designs in our DNA? (Watch: Intelligent Design is Stupid). 

Another great example is his view on alien intelligence (Watch: A Fascinatingly Disturbing Thought). Instead of asking what aliens might seem like to us, what type of technology they have, Tyson looks to the difference between us and our closest relative, the chimp. There is a 1% difference in our DNA, yet we are capable of tasks a trillion times (no exaggeration) more complex than anything the smartest chimp as been capable of completing. We disregard chimps, we laugh at them. They are of no concern to us, no threat. In essence, if aliens differed from us by only 1% in the more intelligent direction, it seems only logical that their technology would be vastly superior, that their children would understand string theory intuitively, and that we would be of no meaning to them whatsoever. It would be egotistical to even think they would bother actively exterminating us in the first place. As Tyson comically puts it, "What are we to they? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence...when was the last time you stopped and had a conversation with a worm?". 

While this approach may not seem particularly novel, combined with Tyson’s ability to speak publicly, and do it well, does make him uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. As such, he was the astrophysicist asked to testify in front of the senate, not someone else, and on a social front, he has reached the New York Times best Twitters list. In essence, Tyson is a public intellectual because he sees the world differently than most of us, and can bring that viewpoint to the public stage. He approaches issues from the reverse direction, asking what’s not when we look to what is, and what can’t be, when we look to what can. His influence in the public sphere and academic sphere has paralleled throughout his life, giving him the rare ability to speak about something as complicated as astrophysics to a common populace.

And in contrast to what some may consider the job of a public intellectual, which is critical and somber, Tyson is exuberant, otherworldly, funny, and idealistic. And he is not one that relies on society to nourish his voice; he is not one to go easily into the night sky, unless it is to stare at the stars. 

Heads Up

Since I have this blog - I figured I might as well post some creative writing works, if I so happen to write anything. I'll update them as I expand the stories. Just a heads up, in case anyone is caught off guard by the random prose interspersed between my more serious postings.

Political Pageantry

There's nothing more appealing to fashion enthusiasts than a fashion show. A series of stick figures strutting their shapely frames across a lighted floor, posing against a symbolic backdrop, pausing with attitude, maybe a quick wink at the audience. Sharp features, appealing colors, the melody of their heels smacking the ground with confidence. Fashion shows are more than a showcase of designer work, they're an art form that specializes in appeal. The wider the audience it appeals to, the more successful.

It shares these same features with dramatized competition (ex. America's Got Talent, American Idol), toddler pageants, and...let's not forget...political conventions. With the RNC and DNC coming to a close this past couple of weeks, we saw the same symbolic backdrops, confident speakers, and done-up makeup as we do in the Ms. Universe pageant. All that was missing was Obama in a bathing suit.
Through it all however, intellectuals, or so I thought, kept a steady head. We know it's a show, we're not going to get sucked into it. Let's talk about the issues. 

It seems, however, that I may be mistaken. In a discussion I had recently with a group of college students who were watching the conventions, their talk didn't revolve around ridiculing the clearly manipulative messages, the slandering of actual facts, or anything of the like. Instead it focused on, in particular, an analysis of the speech givers speeches. I can see the appeal. Many college students with any aspiration will probably become public speakers themselves, in some form. Respecting a good public speaker, and learning from them, can be of great benefit.

But when did American policy become a speech competition? It seems rising intellectuals are falling for  political pageantry in a different way. Instead of falling for the showmanship of each party, they fall under a different mind control, one created by their own emphasis on analysis. For example, several students discussed how Mrs. Romney's speech lacked heart. There wasn't enough real (aka well-faked) conviction in her words, not enough to grab women votes. Others discussed Obama's speech, comparing it to his speeches at the last DNC four years ago. Instead of focusing on the actual issues, the discussion revolved around whether or not Obama would try another "hope" speech, or would he speak in a more grounded manner, what type of tone he would use, etc. The comments went as far as to recommend which type of speech would grab more votes. It's obvious these students know the goal of each speech, to grab votes, they know it's a show, so why is there such a big focus on it?

Someone might speak better. So what? It's the same show, just with a better actor. Are intellectuals accepting this speech competition as a legitimate indicator of a government's success? While much of America was sucked into the pageantry by the celebrity guests and the red, blue, and white, these students became trapped in contrast, by their own doing, by almost respecting the show rather than seeing through it. They applauded Obama's speech, not for what he said, but for how he said it.

And while college students don't speak for the entire intellectual community, as the forefront of the new generation, it was disappointing to see how they can still be controlled not by what the president may say, but simply by their analysis of how he says it. As future speech givers themselves, I'm sure many students were impressed by Obama's ability to move the public. A talent that has much less than do with ruling a nation, and more to do with gaining power within one.

On a very fundamental basis - Obama giving a great speech will make NO DIFFERENCE to the benefit of the economy, it will make NO DIFFERENCE to healthcare, what will make a difference is his plan, and what he plans to do. Yes, a better speech is great, it inspires, it provides hope, but it is not a qualification for presidency, just a benefit.

Why can't we see past that? Is it because we ignore the past (Obama's hope speech before the economy got worse, was phenomenal)? 

I can understand those who may say, a good speech can be good for the nation. Those who believe Obama's plan is a better plan are fully justified in applauding his speech for helping ensure his return to the white house. But their applause should be strategic, with the ultimate goal in mind, to put Obama's plan into action, not because the speech itself might have some direct affect on future policy. Sadly, it didn't seem like this strategic motivation was the reason behind these student's analysis of the candidates speeches. The conversation felt narrow minded, focused on the personae of the future president. As if another moving speech would somehow end the war in Iraq. 

Side note: I chose to focus on Obama here because he can actually speak. Don't get me started on Mitt Romney. 

Welcome To Fovea Centralis

Fovea Centralis is the portion of the human eye with the highest acuity. It's only composed of cones, cells that specialize in interpreting color and contrast. Anyone with glasses has a blurry relationship with their fovea centralis, where the focal point of their eye is no longer layered upon this tiny region. Myopia, or nearsightedness, is the perfect example, where the offset curvature of the lens causes light rays to refract too sharply, concentrating vision just before the fovea centralis.

But this blog isn't a series of science lectures.

The play on eyesight is a play on our lack of focus, where our mental nearsightedness (hence the url) blinds us from the bigger picture. Whether that be in science, politics, the future, etc, it seems the general public has lost perspective, particularly a wider perspective. One that gives equal opportunity to history, anthropology, culture, and philosophy. The term "big picture" is a misnomer, when these factors are included, they make the right picture. A picture with high definition, high acuity.