Psychic powers in SF

[Guardsman Bass]

I've noticed that psychic powers turn up a lot in older SF. This is obviously the case with books like Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, but you see it pop up a fair amount in books where it's not even a major plot element. Haldeman's Forever War has a psychic character early on (albeit not a POV character) who is mentioned as being high on the "Rhine Index", and Heinlein has a "sensor" being protected by Rico and his troops in Starship Troopers.

Was this just a by-product of psychic stuff not being as thoroughly refuted and marginal as it is now?

[B5B7]

You are kidding right? Psi powers are still a staple of both written and audiovisual SF.
Also, if you look at what skeptics continuously have to rebut, at TV current affairs shows, women's magazines, faith healers, fake psychics, etc. then you will see that psychic phenomena still not marginal.

Also, psi powers in SF and fantasy (where its fictional nature is apparent), is a different issue to the real-life belief of many credulous people.

[jollyreaper]

A major scifi editor was a big proponent of the concept and made a point of promoting works that featured it.

http://davidszondy.com/future/man/psionics.htm

[Stark]

Isn't this really about people believing 'psychic powers' aren't 'science fiction'? Some people just have a really narrow view of what is acceptable.

[Simon_Jester]

In the '50s and '60s there were a lot of people who seriously believed that psychic powers were a natural evolution of the human future, just like nuclear power. That as we learned more about thought, we would be able to master it and use it, just as we use metals or electricity now that we understand them. The Human Potential Movement was pretty serious about it.

So far, there's no sign of this being possible. Some writers have stopped bothering with it. Others keep it around, but it's presented differently because we think differently about the shape of the future.

[Stark]

Dude, psychic powers are literally everywhere in scifi, including some of the biggest names in the genre. It's only nerds who invent stupidity like 'science fantasy' to keep their hard scifi totally true speculative cleverdick fiction pure.

Science fiction and fantasy share a section in the bookstore for a reason.

[Formless]

In the '50s and '60s there were a lot of people who seriously believed that psychic powers were a natural evolution of the human future, just like nuclear power. That as we learned more about thought, we would be able to master it and use it, just as we use metals or electricity now that we understand them. The Human Potential Movement was pretty serious about it.

So far, there's no sign of this being possible. Some writers have stopped bothering with it. Others keep it around, but it's presented differently because we think differently about the shape of the future.

Couldn't one interpret the current trend of Cyberpunk/Transhumanist fusion stories as an extension of this idea? Sure, it involves technological workarounds, but that was good enough for Michio Kaku to declare both telepathy and telekinesis to be technically possible in "Physics of the Impossible". Who knows? Maybe at a later date in human history everyone will have iSwarm nanocloud robots that tie into microchips in people's brains and they will take it for granted and wonder why some people in the 2010's dismissed psychic powers as fantasy.

[Simon_Jester]

Couldn't one interpret the current trend of Cyberpunk/Transhumanist fusion stories as an extension of this idea?...

I'd considered saying something about that, but didn't want to seem like more of a rambler than usual... heh.

I'd put it this way: there were '50s and '60s authors who believed in something we might call a "Singularity:" the evolution of humanity (or other species) to a level where we today cannot understand them or predict their actions. But back then the concept of the Singularity was psychic- it was a question of inner mental potential, belief that we only use 10% of our brains, et cetera.

Today, we see the Singularity as technological: squishy humans won't change much, but the world will grow around us and wash over us, with the future belonging (in effect) to the machines we build.

To me that's a significant difference, so I'd call it a transformation of the theme, more than an extension. It plays a similar role in the story plot itself, but it involves different claims and ideas about humanity's place in the cosmos and the direction of our own history.

[Formless]

And yet, Psychic powers appear to be a constant...

[Ahriman238]

Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Firefly, 40K, possibly nBSG, the aforementioned Lensmen, Starship Troopers, Starcraft, All the Posleen and Honorverse books, and I'm sure I'm missing a few really obvious ones.

It'd be a lot quicker to make a list of sci-fi stories that don't involve psychic powers in some way or form.

[Jerry the Vampire]

The reason for Telepaths in fiction is simple. People think they are cool. Also as mentioned, it is very widespread in Science Fiction. Most "Soft Sci fi" has it and even "Hard Sci Fi" tries to implement it via implants. Psychics in Science Fiction will be around for some time to come.

[jollyreaper]

It's one of those things you put on the hard/soft checklist. Everyone has their own criteria and no one can agree for sure. But for someone, any one of these things is crossing the line: FTL, strong AI, reactionless drives, bumpy forehead aliens, naturally-occurring habitable planets, post-scarcity economies, mind-uploading, gravity manipulation, psionics, souls and spirits, ghosts and demons, etc. and some people can be perfectly happy with FTL as hard science and say telepathy crosses the line.

Far as I'm concerned, I prefer a writer make as few handwaves as necessary to make a setting and play everything as straight as possible from there but I value the quality of the story first, I don't look at the hardness before reading. I can also share the irritation when a writer makes a far-fetched jump very far into a story like taking a hard-nosed police procedural and sticking in a ghost. It might seem like a funny problem to have when I enjoy paranormal shows but it just seems like oddball, lazy writing. Seaquest had the nerds in an uproar when the Halloween episode had a real ghost, no mistake, not a haunting that turned out to be a trick, a proper ghost.

Come to think of it, Dickens took some heat from killing off a villain with spontaneous human combustion. He felt it was scientifically sound but his detractors saw it as a silly addition to a serious story. No word on whether they disliked a Christmas Carol.

[Formless]

There is no such thing as a checklist you can mark off to label something as hard or soft science fiction. "Hard Science fiction" was originally supposed to indicate science fiction where science is at the story's thematic core, even if the science turned out to be as soft as butter ten years down the road.

I mean, just look at that list. Its utter nonsense. For example, bumpy forehead aliens are soft science fiction now? Sure, its silly that we keep seeing aliens like that on television. But there is in fact no scientific law stating that evolution cannot settle upon the same body plan twice on different planets where sentience arose. So what's soft about the science of rubber forehead aliens? Absolutely nothing. Its just perceived by its audience to be improbable. By contrast, ghosts and demons? Those predate science fiction entirely. They sometimes make it into science fiction because they are part of the wider culture, and having Obi-Wan instruct Luke from beyond the grave taps into that culture to give the story greater impact with the audience. But that doesn't make them elements of soft science fiction.

[Gunhead]

I don't care about relative "hardness" or "softness" of SF when it comes to psionic powers. Usually you have either overt magic i.e the Force from SW the Warp from 40K or you have some technobabble excuse for the same. I don't really care for either. Magic in SF for me was "given" for a long time, then I grew up and my stance has gone more towards "it's just fucking stupid" ever since. Magic powers usually take the place of religion in many cases and I feel this is because it makes the setting more science fictiony as the mystical powers in a given setting have an actual effect. I guess it could be seen in a light that no one would take part in organized worship / practice some form of mysticism if it didn't give some real world benefits.

-Gunhead

[jollyreaper]

There is no such thing as a checklist you can mark off to label something as hard or soft science fiction. "Hard Science fiction" was originally supposed to indicate science fiction where science is at the story's thematic core, even if the science turned out to be as soft as butter ten years down the road.

I mean, just look at that list. Its utter nonsense. For example, bumpy forehead aliens are soft science fiction now? Sure, its silly that we keep seeing aliens like that on television. But there is in fact no scientific law stating that evolution cannot settle upon the same body plan twice on different planets where sentience arose. So what's soft about the science of rubber forehead aliens? Absolutely nothing. Its just perceived by its audience to be improbable. By contrast, ghosts and demons? Those predate science fiction entirely. They sometimes make it into science fiction because they are part of the wider culture, and having Obi-Wan instruct Luke from beyond the grave taps into that culture to give the story greater impact with the audience. But that doesn't make them elements of soft science fiction.

If I was not entirely clear, I was trying to indicate that checklists are subjective. Some people might easily find anything with FTL and hard AI and terraforming to be bs but buys the concept of alien space babes falling into a harem comedy scenario.

Being subjective, some people might rate some things higher than others and no two people will have the same hard sf checklist. Naturally, my concept of scifi is correct and yours is shit. Such is the way of fandom

Checklists are subjective. All I ask is that a work declare disbelief suspensions in the beginning and play it straight from there. Otherwise weak writing becomes easy to fall into.

[Simon_Jester]

And yet, Psychic powers appear to be a constant...

Yes.

They're a bit less likely nowadays to be presented as an inherently, qualitatively superior, more evolved way for a human being to be. More like they're just an extra mildly cool ability, like "can hold his breath a long time"

That was more my point. The plotwise role of psi hasn't changed. But the literary role and position in the overall culture, that's changed. Likewise the role and subculture of science fiction in particular. Or that's what I think; take with salt-grain.

[Gunhead]

All I ask is that a work declare disbelief suspensions in the beginning and play it straight from there. Otherwise weak writing becomes easy to fall into.

This. Magic in SF is the crutch for weak writing. While SF technology might be magic for all points and purposes, like FTL, pewpew lasers, super materials etc. Technology usually is less likely to be used as a tool to give a character the ability to do X out of the blue. Magic tends to be less well defined and thus it's an open license to writers to basically use the "oh but it's MAGIC" excuse without really thinking it through. For the most part I feel having magic in SF to be redundant. You're already going to slap physics around like redheaded bastard child, so why not settle for that.
And by this I don't mean "Give group of people the power to change the laws of physics at will through some vaguely technological sounding reason that still hinges on some innate ability".
This is basically the same as giving them outright magic powers or at least is a slippery slope towards it.

-Gunhead

[Simon_Jester]

I do not agree.

The point in science fiction is exploring ideas about the future, or our relationship with science and technology, or even just telling a good story in an environment with the trappings of advanced technology- for art's sake.

I see no reason why 'real' SF shouldn't explore the idea of strange mental powers, along with all the other things it can go into.

[Boeing 757]

I've noticed that psychic powers turn up a lot in older SF. This is obviously the case with books like Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, but you see it pop up a fair amount in books where it's not even a major plot element. Haldeman's Forever War has a psychic character early on (albeit not a POV character) who is mentioned as being high on the "Rhine Index", and Heinlein has a "sensor" being protected by Rico and his troops in Starship Troopers.

Was this just a by-product of psychic stuff not being as thoroughly refuted and marginal as it is now?

It's more than just a simple matter of looking to what people believed was possible in the 1950's and 60's. The phenomenon (if you want to call it) has its roots elsewhere. Exampli gratia, mankind has believed in supernatural beings for its entire recorded history. There hasn't been a period of time in human history where religion and belief in beings with supernatural powers has not dominated cultural thinking and politics in one way or an other.

Go for a drive through your local community, and see how many churches, synagogues and mosques (among others) that you will spot out in total. It's almost as if we are programmed as a species to believe in supernatural abilities. It's not surprising in my mind in the slightest that this belief has transferred over into modern sci-fi.

[Boeing 757]

I do not agree.

The point in science fiction is exploring ideas about the future, or our relationship with science and technology, or even just telling a good story in an environment with the trappings of advanced technology- for art's sake.

I see no reason why 'real' SF shouldn't explore the idea of strange mental powers, along with all the other things it can go into.

That, it is. And science-fiction is by no means limited to exploring futuristic ideas. It can also explore our past beliefs and ideals while also examining the future. Warhammer 40K is a good paradigm thereof.

[Boeing 757]

Sorry, double post.

[Simon_Jester]

I do not agree.

The point in science fiction is exploring ideas about the future, or our relationship with science and technology, or even just telling a good story in an environment with the trappings of advanced technology- for art's sake.

I see no reason why 'real' SF shouldn't explore the idea of strange mental powers, along with all the other things it can go into.

That, it is. And science-fiction is by no means limited to exploring futuristic ideas. It can also explore our past beliefs and ideals while also examining the future. Warhammer 40K is a good paradigm thereof.

I'd class 40k as being more along the lines of "telling story in environment with high-tech trappings."

Most 40k stories would work quite well in a setting no more advanced than World War One. You could repurpose and rewrite it all as supernatural adventure or horror or military fiction in the past, rather than the future. The interstellar travel and aliens are part of the scenery.

I'm not criticizing that. 40k isn't made worse by this. As a whole, it just isn't written as an exploration of the trends of our future or what it means to be human or anything like that. Neither is Star Wars, or for that matter a lot of other popular SF.

[Channel72]

Psychic powers in science fiction are a lot closer to magic than science fiction. Yes, so is FTL and various other standard sci-fi elements, but the difference is that very often the writers don't even try to treat psionics like anything other than magic. FTL and anti-gravity certainly isn't hard-science - but FTL drives break, they operate on (fictional) physical principles, they need to be repaired, etc. They're treated like a piece of technology that can be understood, adapted or enhanced. But psionics are more often treated like a mystical phenonom which can't really be understood or studied. I think there's even a line somewhere in Star Trek: TNG where somebody says that "there's no technology that can block telepathy." Well, why not? Clearly the thoughts/information must be transmitted from one mind to another somehow, and it should be detectable and even blockable. Similarly, Vulcan mind melds or Spock's mind-upload is treated like a magical phenomenon: if a Vulcan can upload his "katra" to another being, why isn't this exploited technologically to enable immortality somehow? Yes, a lot of the tech in sci-fi has ramifications which aren't explored by the writers, but psionics in particular is treated like it's not even a scientific phenomenon: it's just plain magic.

[Formless]

I do not agree.

The point in science fiction is exploring ideas about the future, or our relationship with science and technology, or even just telling a good story in an environment with the trappings of advanced technology- for art's sake.

I see no reason why 'real' SF shouldn't explore the idea of strange mental powers, along with all the other things it can go into.

Precisely. I think people here are fixated on stories like Star Wars and 40K where psionics are given explicitly religious treatments (and why not? If you've had psychics since time immemorial, it makes sense that they might have some sort of elevated status because of their abilities) or on stories like Star Trek that just don't give a fuck about any of their throwaway technobabble. But those aren't the be all and end all of psychic powers. They can and are also used as a thematic element in other stories.

For example, say you have a dystopian future setting-- a police state of curbstomped freedom and government micromanagement. Telepaths could be introduced to this setting as a symbol of domestic surveillance taken to its ultimate extreme; a world where the very mind itself is not safe from invasions of privacy. Or the reverse-- a world where the psychics (or other humans with strange abilities) are the victims of a society that fears and hates them because they represent something which normal people do not understand. You know, like the X-Men. Who really gives a fuck if its unrealistic science? Sci-fi often contains exaggerated elements to highlight things that might otherwise go unnoticed. It doesn't make sense physically, but it makes sense thematically. And these are just two themes you can go with-- there are plenty others if you just stop to think about fiction on a deeper level than "Must... Be... HARD.... Science!"

[Alerik the Fortunate]

It's more than just a simple matter of looking to what people believed was possible in the 1950's and 60's. The phenomenon (if you want to call it) has its roots elsewhere. Exampli gratia, mankind has believed in supernatural beings for its entire recorded history. There hasn't been a period of time in human history where religion and belief in beings with supernatural powers has not dominated cultural thinking and politics in one way or an other.

Go for a drive through your local community, and see how many churches, synagogues and mosques (among others) that you will spot out in total. It's almost as if we are programmed as a species to believe in supernatural abilities. It's not surprising in my mind in the slightest that this belief has transferred over into modern sci-fi.

This. The idea of a special, indivisible, fundamentally mental core to our nature appeals to our intuitions and our culturally ingrained notions of identity, and people are loathe to give it up. Psychic powers tend to be presented in a way that bolsters this, and reinforces the tendency that I see in soft sci-fi to use magical handwaving to keep the stories more normal: familiar quests with familiar characters against re-imagined familiar cultures on familiar timescales, just with more bling. If you take a very materialistic view of the nature of consciousness and life, then even fairly modest developments in technologies such as AI, mind uploading/emulating, genetic engineering, and life extension start to lead, in the absence of handwaving, to rapid and deep explorations of the nature of identity, morality, and whatnot, that results in plots, characters, and societies that are more alien than the average viewer or reader is probably comfortable with. Because of the larger cognitive gap, I think it is also harder for writers to imagine such settings in a way that is both engaging and realistic feeling. I think psionics have been presented in a changing way to overcome the greater sophistication of interested audiences, so they don't feel so naive in accepting it, but it's still basically handwaving.

Edit: Formless brought out the other use of psychics I meant to mention: as a symbol for things in our own society. Aliens, rather obviously, filled the same role in Star Trek, mostly: as metaphors for racial or ideological groups in conflict in our own culture.