Invisibility. How many times have you wished that you could turn invisible at will? If you’re anything like me, then you have probably contemplated with some seriousness what you would do with such ability. Historically, we would not be alone. Invisibility has been written or thought about for generations. The OED defines the invisible as, “That cannot be seen; that by its nature is not an object of sight; not in sight; not to be seen at a particular place or time, or by a particular person.” To be invisible, one needs to avoid being visible. That sounds pretty simple, but it shouldn’t be overstated that visibility determines that which is invisible.

So what makes something visible? If you’ve taken high-school biology, then you probably know a little about the ocular system and how they work. If you don’t remember how your eyes work, then you can check out this link for a complete explanation. The issue that I want to call attention to is that the process is complicated and it involves light. The reflection of light off of objects in a very narrow spectrum allows humans to see certain objects. Some objects you can’t see. Think about gas leaks, photons, radiation, and even individual cells. You don’t see these particles because they’re invisible to you. The first admission of invisibility for a modern person is probably in this sense; invisible things are micro-events that happen around us all the time. A proper student of astronomy understands that the majority of the mass in the universe is invisible to us. In essence, humans can see very little even with the use of technology to aid in our extra-sensory perception (see previous blog). But barring cosmic mysteries and microscopic entities, what historical references exist for invisibility?

For anyone that has religious inclinations, the concept of invisibility should be no surprise to you. In fact, the first few instances that the OED mentions for the use of the word are as follows: “1340 HAMPOLE Pr. Consc. 8231 How God invysible es, And unchaungeable, and endless.” Despite the funky middle English spelling, the concept of invisibility is attributed to the omnipresence and omniscience of God. You can’t see God, but he’s there. He has invisibility. Another instance from the OED by DeFoe lists an infernal connection in an almost Manechist equalization of divine power: “1727 DE FOE Syst. Magic I. ii. (1840) 49 The Devil, or some of his invisible agents, which we call evil spirits.” You can’t see the Devil, but he’s there. He has invisibility. The first instance of invisibility in the human language is attributed to divine beings. In the anonymous play Mankind, the minor demon Titivillus is endowed with invisibility which he uses to torment mankind. But what about people with invisibility?

The first mention of invisibility in a fantasy setting that I wish to address comes from the Nibelungenlied. In this rather lengthy German epic poem, a dragon-hunter by the name of Siegfried receives a cloak which grants him invisibility and great strength. He uses this invisibility to aid one of his friends without others knowing. At some point in history, somebody thought that it would be really keen if he could be invisible. Another fantasy hero that people should clearly identify with invisibility is Bilbo Baggins. Interestingly enough, the Nibelungenlied also contains a ring that grants the wearer powers and is the object of worldly control. J. R. R. Tolkien was clearly influenced by this story and used many of the old mythologies in reconstructing a mythology. But we are still in the world of fantasy and hardly in the world of reality. The concept that I am bringing to you bears in mind true invisibility. The first place we should turn to for real invisibility is the animal world.

I know what you’re thinking. Outside of pokemon, animals aren’t invisible. Somewhat true; animals can’t just turn invisible. But they can do their damndest to deceive your vision, rendering them effectively invisible. The most memorable animal to master the art of deception is the three-horned chameleon. Even the name of the creature (not the three horned part) is used interchangeably with camouflage and visual deception. Other animals that can play a great game of hide and seek are the walking stick insect, the flatfish, paradoxophyla palmata (a type of tree frog in Madagascar), the Indonesian Mimic Octopus, the sand flathead, the grey cicada, and Merlet’s scorpionfish are great examples of animals that know how to blend into the background. This is where people start to get involved.

You have probably noticed that people don’t really blend into the background without taking some precautions. Unlike the mighty chameleon, we can’t change our skin color at will. But we can definitely change our clothing whenever we see fit. If you remember playing hide and seek as a kid, there are a couple of rules to being a good hider. The first rule is to dress appropriately; that red t-shirt with the orange hi-tops and neon green pants are probably going to give away your position. Conversely, those all black clothes for a night background are going to help you out. Another rule is choosing the appropriate cover. If you can blend into the background well, then you have a great chance of not being discovered. The quintessential modern depiction of animal camouflage adopted by humans is the ghillie suit. Essentially, the name of these suits comes from Scottish origins but the idea behind the suit has been used by hunters for generations. The idea is to create a suit that utilizes the surrounding areas foliage to blend into the environment. This has become so ingrained into our culture that even in the movie Goldeneye, there is a sequence at the finale of the film in which the marines all become visible. Here you go:

That should give you a pretty good idea of what our current perception of invisibility is. But what about the future? Hell, what about today? Here’s a video of an interesting projector/fabric combination that bends light around objects to blend into the background. The effect is optic camouflage. Take a look:

This really reminds me of a couple of popular science-fiction stories that depict the kind of invisibility that I believe is becoming possible today. The most clear reference to optical camouflage comes from Ghost in the Shell; take a gander:

In that video, there is a reference made to the Tokyo students that harnessed the kind of technology that was shown in fiction. According to German scientists, this kind of cloaking is not far from being an active reality without the use of projectors. Here is a link to the article so you can ponder the future possibilities for invisibility. Some questions that I still have about this ability are: What purpose does such a technology really hold for a peaceful people? How will this technology be controlled? Are there ways of detecting these invisibly clad soldiers or machines? How does this technology impact the privacy rights of individuals? Clearly, the implications for this technology are pretty far-reaching, but outside of the battlefield, I really don’t see how this tech will aid cooperative humanity. See you next week when we talk about power armor.

Extra-Sensory Perception. The term itself is somewhat questionable and offers some troubling connotations. A simple glance for synonyms on the internet yields the following busload of equally troubling terms: clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, insight, mind-reading, parapsychology, premonition, presentiment, second sight, sixth sense, spiritualism, telepathic transmission, telesthesia, and thought transference. Some of these terms offer nothing in the way of clarity, but there are some words and phrases there that offer an opening for understanding.

A workable definition for perception from the Princeton Online Dictionary defines it as “the ability to become aware of something via the senses.” The most relevant part of this definition is the final phrase: “via the senses.” People are created almost identical in terms of genetic, but they are far from alike in terms of ability. Some people are born without a sense of sight. Some people are born without a sense of hearing. Some people have a limited sense of smell. Some people can not feel even their own limbs. Some people can cognate faster than others. The simple fact is that some people are gifted with senses that are beyond the usual scope of humankind. These people, by definition of the average human with average senses, would possess extrasensory perception.

In searching for a better definition, I encountered that which was presented in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED): “Of perception: made by other means than those of the known sense-organs, e.g. by telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.; hence, received by such means; of or pertaining to the study of such perception. (extra-sensory perception is often abbreviated to E.S.P., ESP.).” Accompanying this definition, are some examples of usage that appeared in text; J. B. Rhine coined the phrase in this passage, “J. B. RHINE Extra-Sensory Perception (1935) p. xxx, Let us merely say..‘perception by means that are outside of the recognized senses’, and indicate this meaning by ‘Extra-Sensory Perception’ or E.S.P.” J.B. Rhine is a prominent figure to check out when discussing the paranormal in any detail. More information will follow in a separate blog post about this particularly interesting fellow. But the term extra-sensory perception is still quite a modern term (as you can see from above, the initial date and usage of the phrase is 1935). I think it is worth the time and trouble to see if we can find a definition that goes back a little further than that. The term that I will focus on for this post will be clairvoyance.

Clairvoyance is an older term, but still retains a pretty modern meaning. One of the definitions from the OED that I find particularly interesting states, “Keenness of mental perception, clearness of insight; insight into things beyond the range of ordinary perception.” This is completely synonymous with the definition presented above for extra-sensory perception. Here is an interesting example of the usage of clairvoyance: “1884 SYMONDS Shaks. Predec. ii. §19. 79 What may be called..clairvoyance in dramatic matters. Ibid. 81 This clairvoyance gave them insight into things beyond their own experience. Shakespeare painted much that he had never seen.” I believe that Symonds offers a very touching interpretation of what clairvoyance can be taken to stand for in the harsh world of the social norm that we find ourselves in.

In popular culture, there are all sorts of characters that have specially designed powers that are based on the criteria stated above. A few that come to mind are Daredevil, Spiderman, Master-Chief, and Wonder-Woman. But other than thinking that extra-sensory perception is just related to fiction, I feel that Symonds offers us a way to look into our world today and note those that are able to capture expressions that others miss. Essentially, I feel that the above delving into the word “extra-sensory perception” (which, mind, I know is a very shallow delve), offers us to see ESP as an appreciation of something that is often missed. In an artistic sense, this discussion should give you a reason to appreciate any time a person gives an insight that most of us would have otherwise missed, through any medium. But, I think we can also think of ways in which technology can give us a boost with perception.

The most recognizable form of extra-sensory perception that people in this generation would recognize is night-vision goggles. These goggles do exactly what the information above describes; they give a person the ability to have a perception that is beyond the norm. How do night vision goggles work? You can check this link out for the specifics, or you can trust me when I say that night-vision has amazing properties. Essentially there are two major forms of night vision: image enhancement which uses light, even lower portions of the infrared light spectrum, or thermal imaging which detects the upper portion of the infrared spectrum and displays the natural heat emitted by objects. But that is precisely what the issue is here. These magic goggles can let you see in the dark with amazing clarity. They let you perceive what was otherwise un-perceivable. Obviously, this power can put you at great advantage in a combat situation, but are there other purposes to this kind of perception? Can we expect cars to have light amplification night-driving modes in the future? Lightweight versions that fit like sunglasses and can be fitted into common frames for outdoor use? Or is this power to great for common people to posses? Is it something that we need to perceive for our armed elite?

In this example, you can see that the military uses night vision to both find their enemy more effectively, but also to avoid certain targets that otherwise would have been covered with an insane amount of lead and explosives. I don’t want to mislead anyone though, misdirection is another trick that is often employed when people have superior technologies. Since the time of the Trojan War, people have been duping other people with superior technology. Here is a picture of a wooden German tank during World War II that was meant to waste allied munitions, gasoline, and supplies in general in pursuing their destruction. This reminds me of an old Chinese proverb, “he who knows his heart mistrusts his eyes.” Other ways of extra-sensory perception can be devices that we don’t necessarily consider extrodinary anymore, but they do enhance our natural senses. An obvious device that enhances our speech is a microphone. It’s not unusual anymore, but think of the implications that this device had with it when it was first introduced. The ability to amplify the human voice so that it carried to the ears of thousands instead of hundreds. There are probably hundreds of examples, but I feel that these are a few of the places you can justly defend calling “extra-sensory perceptions.”