Review
Awe and wonder
Culture
6 min read

A Sky Full of Stars: lessons on awe from Coldplay's concert

Unexpectedly finding herself among a sea of 90,000 people at a recent Coldplay concert, Belle Tindall reflects on what the experience taught her about the nature of awe and wonder.
A singer struts a stage pointing to the spotlight as coloured orbs float down.
Coldplay's Music of the Spheres tour.
Stevie Rae Gibbs, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Coldplay are about to wrap up the European leg of their Music of the Spheres tour; their multi year-long and (literally) world-wide spectacle. When I say spectacle, I really mean it. The three-hour long show is nothing short of an audio-visual marvel, one that they’ve played to millions of people over the past year or so, and a couple of weeks ago, I was (rather unexpectedly) one of them.  

Hold your personal tastes for a while, leave your ‘Coldplay make me cringe’ critiques at the door (you can pick them back up at the end), and allow me a moment to paint the picture for you.  

The band adorn alien masks, they duet with a puppet, they dance upon a stage that changes colour beneath their feet, they release a tidal wave of giant beach balls, they dance through a downpour of confetti, and they bring it to an end under a canopy of fireworks. That’s not to mention their most infamous party-trick, the wristbands that turn the audience themselves into the lightshow. The result is, as you can imagine, utterly breath-taking. The crowd become a panoramic murmuration of colour that dances around the stadium.  

Aside from the long queues for the bathroom and the sticky folding seats, the escapism is all-encompassing, it doesn’t falter for a moment. All of it made all the more wholesome for knowing that its being powered (at least in part) by the kinetic dancefloor and the spin bikes towards the back of the stadium.  

And I know what you’re thinking, I haven’t even mentioned the music yet. 

There is something innate within us that is awoken when we are faced with something great, something that transcends us as an individual, that resides outside of ourselves. 

What is there to say? Hearing 90,000 people belt out words as heart-wrenchingly vulnerable and honest as ‘nobody said it was easy, no one ever said it would be this hard’ on a cloudy Wednesday evening was as powerful as you would expect. Strikingly countercultural too, where does all that emotional honesty hide when it is not coaxed out by nights like these? But that’s a question for another article. Watching those same 90,000 people put their arms around the ones they love as they sing the words of the cosmically-minded love song Yellow, and then in the next moment dance with abandon to Adventure of a Lifetime was a joy to behold, a people-watcher’s paradise, a true case study in human nature and emotion.  

And that leads me to the premise of this piece, which is not wholly to gush over Coldplay.  

As I observed these 90,000 strangers, many of whom had travelled a considerable distance to commune together in this place at this time, I was reminded that humans are made with an inherent need for awe and wonder. There is something innate within us that is awoken when we are faced with something great, something that transcends us as an individual, that resides outside of ourselves – and that is exactly what I witnessed. More interesting than any firework display was the sight of 90,000 people who had pressed pause on the daily rhythms of their lives and gone on a pilgrimage in search of awe and wonder.  

Awe and wonder are admittedly elusive emotions, notoriously hard to define and harder still to analyse. As a result, they have been largely understudied and overlooked. However, the one thing we do know about awe and wonder is that they are among the most precious and powerful emotions a person will experience. Dacher Keltner, a psychologist at the forefront of a surge of research into the complexities of awe, proposes that awe is distinct; it is not interchangeable with joy or fear, ecstasy, or horror. Rather, raw awe is a particular state that comes as a result of experiencing vastness. As Keltner writes, 

‘Awe arises in encounters with stimuli that are vast, or beyond one’s current perceptual frame of reference. Vastness can be physical, perceptual, or semantic and requires that extant knowledge structures be accommodated to make sense of what is being perceived.’ 

In short, awe is an emotional reminder that we are small.  

It is perhaps surprising that coming face-to-face with our minute nature equates to mental and spiritual wellbeing. Our individualistic society would have us believe that such a reality should bring forth feelings of desolation or a fear of oblivion, that awe must therefore be a gateway to some kind of existential crisis. But not so. Numerous studies tell us that is simply not the case.  

Believe it or not, we humans benefit from coming face-to-face with our smallness. It has recently been suggested that cultivating awe on a regular basis can ease stress, depression, and anxiety. It can improve our sleep, increase our creative capabilities, and even reduce inflammation. It is a core premise that underlies the Twelve Step programme, an acknowledgment that there is something bigger than oneself, and therefore stronger than one’s addiction, continues to aid countless people in their recovery. Referring once again to Keltner, he proposes that when awe is notably absent from a person’s routine, narcissism, materialism, and a deep sense of disconnection from anything that resides outside of themselves become its inevitable substitutes. 

And what’s more, we actually enjoy awe. We crave it. We go out of our way to seek it out.  

We build telescopes and gaze into space, we flock to areas of outstanding beauty, we take pictures of sunsets, we visit ancient ruins, we study pieces of art, we sing our hearts out in stadiums brimming with complete strangers.  

It’s fascinating. The more you allow yourself to dwell on the nature of awe, the more interesting it becomes. How remarkable that even in a society which is largely built upon premises such as Albert Einstein’s - ‘everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual’ - we seem to have a biological afront to this, something ingrained that tells us that this is not true.  

Of course, I imagine you have been waiting for me to bring God into all of this? To say that any awe the world can offer is but a mere glimpse, to allude to something similar to what C.S Lewis said, that  

‘if you find yourself with a desire that no experience in this world can satisfy, then the most probable explanation is that you were made for another world’

and subsequently suggest that the seen cannot compare with the unseen. 

I suppose it could absolutely be argued that our craving for bigger things is a symptom of our craving for the bigger thing. That our wonder at all things transcendent is a taste of the wonder on offer from the transcendent. And that is certainly an intriguing thought. That’s the kind of thought that has led the likes of Paul Kingsnorth into Christianity, and David Baddiel to oppose it. Do we crave vastness and need awe because we crave and need God? Or do we crave (or as Baddiel would argue, create) God because we crave vastness and need awe? Such a thought could be pondered for a lifetime, and I suppose now would be as good a time as any to start.  

But for now, I shall return to where I started, sitting on seat M22 at a Coldplay concert, just one of a sea of 90,000 people, all listening to a set list of songs that have become cultural artefacts. Each tune that bellowed from Cardiff’s Principality Stadium during Coldplay’s residency there gathered countless individual stories and bound them together into a wonderous collective sound. It both belonged to every person there and transcended them.  

If you ever found yourself in need of a lesson in awe, I would heartily recommend.  

Article
AI
Culture
Generosity
Psychology
Virtues
5 min read

AI will never codify the unruly instructions that make us human

The many exceptions to the rules are what make us human.
A desperate man wearing 18th century clothes holds candlesticks
Jean Valjean and the candlesticks, in Les Misérables.

On average, students with surnames beginning in the letters A-E get higher grades than those who come later in the alphabet. Good looking people get more favourable divorce settlements through the courts, and higher payouts for damages. Tall people are more likely to get promoted than their shorter colleagues, and judges give out harsher sentences just before lunch. It is clear that human judgement is problematically biased – sometimes with significant consequences. 

But imagine you were on the receiving end of such treatment, and wanted to appeal your overly harsh sentence, your unfair court settlement or your punitive essay grade: is Artificial Intelligence the answer? Is AI intelligent enough to review the evidence, consider the rules, ignore human vagaries, and issue an impartial, more sophisticated outcome?  

In many cases, the short answer is yes. Conveniently, AI can review 50 CVs, conduct 50 “chatbot” style interviews, and identify which candidates best fit the criteria for promotion. But is the short and convenient answer always what we want? In their recent publication, As If Human: Ethics and Artificial Intelligence, Nigel Shadbolt and Roger Hampson discuss research which shows that, if wrongly condemned to be shot by a military court but given one last appeal, most people would prefer to appeal in person to a human judge than have the facts of their case reviewed by an AI computer. Likewise, terminally ill patients indicate a preference for doctor’s opinions over computer calculations on when to withdraw life sustaining treatment, even though a computer has a higher predictive power to judge when someone’s life might be coming to an end. This preference may seem counterintuitive, but apparently the cold impartiality—and at times, the impenetrability—of machine logic might work for promotions, but fails to satisfy the desire for human dignity when it comes to matters of life and death.  

In addition, Shadbolt and Hampson make the point that AI is actually much less intelligent than many of us tend to think. An AI machine can be instructed to apply certain rules to decision making and can apply those rules even in quite complex situations, but the determination of those rules can only happen in one of two ways: either the rules must be invented or predetermined by whoever programmes the machine, or the rules must be observable to a “Large Language Model” AI when it scrapes the internet to observe common and typical aspects of human behaviour.  

The former option, deciding the rules in advance, is by no means straightforward. Humans abide by a complex web of intersecting ethical codes, often slipping seamlessly between utilitarianism (what achieves the most amount of good for the most amount of people?) virtue ethics (what makes me a good person?) and theological or deontological ideas (what does God or wider society expect me to do?) This complexity, as Shadbolt and Hampson observe, means that: 

“Contemporary intellectual discourse has not even the beginnings of an agreed universal basis for notions of good and evil, or right and wrong.”  

The solution might be option two – to ask AI to do a data scrape of human behaviour and use its superior processing power to determine if there actually is some sort of universal basis to our ethical codes, perhaps one that humanity hasn’t noticed yet. For example, you might instruct a large language model AI to find 1,000,000 instances of a particular pro-social act, such as generous giving, and from that to determine a universal set of rules for what counts as generosity. This is an experiment that has not yet been done, probably because it is unlikely to yield satisfactory results. After all, what is real generosity? Isn’t the truly generous person one who makes a generous gesture even when it is not socially appropriate to do so? The rule of real generosity is that it breaks the rules.  

Generosity is not the only human virtue which defies being codified – mercy falls at exactly the same hurdle. AI can never learn to be merciful, because showing mercy involves breaking a rule without having a different rule or sufficient cause to tell it to do so. Stealing is wrong, this is a rule we almost all learn from childhood. But in the famous opening to Les Misérables, Jean Valjean, a destitute convict, steals some silverware from Bishop Myriel who has provided him with hospitality. Valjean is soon caught by the police and faces a lifetime of imprisonment and forced labour for his crime. Yet the Bishop shows him mercy, falsely informing the police that the silverware was a gift and even adding two further candlesticks to the swag. Stealing is, objectively, still wrong, but the rule is temporarily suspended, or superseded, by the bishop’s wholly unruly act of mercy.   

Teaching his followers one day, Jesus stunned the crowd with a catalogue of unruly instructions. He said, “Give to everyone who asks of you,” and “Love your enemies” and “Do good to those who hate you.” The Gospel writers record that the crowd were amazed, astonished, even panicked! These were rules that challenged many assumptions about the “right” way to live – many of the social and religious “rules” of the day. And Jesus modelled this unruly way of life too – actively healing people on the designated day of rest, dining with social outcasts and having contact with those who had “unclean” illnesses such as leprosy. Overall, the message of Jesus was loud and clear, people matter more than rules.  

AI will never understand this, because to an AI people don’t actually exist, only rules exist. Rules can be programmed in manually or extracted from a data scrape, and one rule can be superseded by another rule, but beyond that a rule can never just be illogically or irrationally broken by a machine. Put more simply, AI can show us in a simplistic way what fairness ought to look like and can protect a judge from being punitive just because they are a bit hungry. There are many positive applications to the use of AI in overcoming humanity’s unconscious and illogical biases. But at the end of the day, only a human can look Jean Valjean in the eye and say, “Here, take these candlesticks too.”   

Celebrate our 2nd birthday!

Since Spring 2023, our readers have enjoyed over 1,000 articles. All for free. 
This is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you enjoy Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?

Do so by joining Behind The Seen. Alongside other benefits, you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing my reading and reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin
Editor-in-Chief