Do We Live in a Simulation? Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- In his 1981 book Simulation and Simulacra, Jean Baudrillard makes the claim that we are all living in a simulation. Baudrillard’s conception of simulation is extremely complex, going beyond The Matrix’s conception of the simulation (a movie that was inspired by Baudrillard’s Simulation and Simulacra) as a virtual reality world in which we all live.
Baudrillard says that with the emergence of the postmodern age, we have entered the simulation, a hyperreality in which all access to the real has debarred. The real is decaying away while we ourselves are locked into the hyperreal space without referents.
In this episode we will be looking at Jean Baudrillard’s conception of hyperreality and the hyperreal postmodern landscape we now inhabit. In Baudrillard postmodernism meets futurism and sci-fi to paint the terrifying picture of the dystopic landscape we find ourselves in. As we’ve gone deeper into the 21st century this work of Baudrillard has been shown to be more and more prescient, a topic we will dive deeper into in future episode of the Living Philosophy.
____________________
⭐ Support the channel (thank you!)
▶ Patreon: / thelivingphilosophy
▶ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
________________
Media Used:
1. Anguish - Kevin MacLeod
2. Lightless Dawn - Kevin MacLeod
3. New Frontier - Kevin MacLeod
4. There’s Probably No Time - Chris Zabriskie
Subscribe to Kevin MacLeod / kmmusic
Subscribe to Chris Zabriskie / chriszabriskie
_________________
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:35 Simulation and Simulacra
5:53 The Difficulties of Defining Simulation
8:26 What is Simulation
10:32 The Hypermarket Simulation
13:12 The Tasaday Simulation
15:24 Summary and Conclusion
________________
#Baudrillard #thelivingphilosophy #philosophy #simulation
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:35 Simulation and Simulacra
5:53 The Difficulties of Defining Simulation
8:26 What is Simulation
10:32 The Hypermarket Simulation
13:12 The Tasaday Simulation
15:24 Summary and Conclusion
How do you feel about hypermodernity? Do you feel it can be an organic transition from postmodernism, and as affluent? I actually think Chris Nolan, GRRM and Roddenberry (TNG) are (was) a few of the first hypermodern artists
@@VonJay I actually have never heard of the term hypermodernity VonJay. But going off the three names you mentioned...hmmm no actually because I don't think I'm reading this right. I was initially thinking of sci fi and how GRRM wrote scifi but then if I look at what connects GRRM and Chris Nolan it seems more about a type of art that dispenses with old ways of telling stories. Could you clarify for me what you mean by hypermodernity and I'll try to answer?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy wiki states that Hypermodernism is an inversion of modernism. Yet when I read books on Hypermodernity, they consistently define it as a form of expression that works above both modernism and Postmodernism. It doesn't discard them, but utilizes them as pillars.
For instance, Star Trek OS had leaned on more modernistic toolsets while also setting the stage for the evolution of the toolset. There were characters and or events, themes that served as vehicles for grand narratives and or universal truths(star wars however is a better example of modernistic storytelling, but I'm using Trek to highlight the differences of modern takes, as the first Postmodern star wars film was TFA).
Star Trek discovery is the first postmodern star trek ever made. It trades grand narratives for local, universal truths for subjective, defined moral qualities for blurred lines, innovative creation or evolution of symbols (HM since TNG preceded Discovery) to rediscovery of old nostalgic symbols, clear cut villain and heroes, for heroes among villains and anti heroes.
Star Trek TNG is Hypermodern and is basically about a ship full of cosmopolitans that navigate both the physical and ethnocentric universes. They are less emotionally compromised than their discovery and OS counterparts. There are characters that may give crew members the occasional tug of racial and social fevers, or members that may serve as vehicles for the different modernities, but much of the screen time is given to those who have overcome themselves. Which affects the tone.
Out of all of the three, Postmodernism seems to be the most successful in terms of money.
In GOT, GRRM uses Hypermodern characters less prominently, and drowns his modern characters with Postmodern characters and themes. However the modern and Hypermodern characters (at least in the show), outlast the postmodern characters, and subsequently change the tone of the show from a postmodern feel to a Hypermodern one.
The postmodern takes can be seen more like a honeypot lure for audiences that love blurred lines, anti heroes and subjective truths, but I doubt that was the intention of GRRM (he claims to be a Gardener and not an architect when he writes).
Nolan focuses heavily on grand concepts and themes, it's to point where his protagonists are such good navigators in open waters, that it seems as though the vital information on how to stair the boat correctly was already within them, and the winds of their emotional wounds are perfect for the course they are setting. That's not to say that they do not face trials and tribulations, it's to say that they seem to have had the experience and insight already and only needed a reminder of the correct course to take. Which I think is exactly how the crew of TNG operates.
@@VonJay Well that was one of the most fascinating blocks of texts I've read in a while. I still don't fully understand it but I must research deeper into this idea of hypermodernity. I loved the way you navigated it though with reference to these three creators all of whose work I'd know very well. Amazing
"We now live in an entirely simulated world. What exactly this means I'm still wrestling with." For me, what this means is that even in recognizing a (or the) simulation, we are only recognizing a simulation of what we want to recognize. The reality still eludes us, but we don't know that because what we are looking for itself isn't real. Take your market example, we recognize that the hypermarket is unsatisfying, we look to the "old market" for inspiration and to feel wholesome and free of the simulation, yet what we seek there isn't freedom it's just another market constructed to look and feel more like what we think those old markets from hundreds of years ago were like. We cannot turn back time, not because we can't reconstruct something, but because the reconstruction itself is built with modern tools that are part of the modern simulation.
But you can still get a feel for it in the public msrkets in any town in the Philippines. One such still used a rusty old scales from the Spanish era!
It also means that the very ground we stand on today is built upon older simulations, to the point where there is no objective truth anymore, only a general consensus of what we are told is the truth.
An experience can only be had once.
You can never go back into an old part of life
@@bundydryandlime that's not true I go back to Disneyland every year
Those old markets, even when they were most prevalent, were simulations of harvest season for farmers. Agriculture is a simulation of foraging for your hunter-gatherer tribe, etc. You can't escape it, it's turtles all the way down.
The further society "advances", the farther it plunges into the simulation.
I read Sim and Sim in 2008 while i was in grad school. The book was instrumental in my leaving academia. I went up to my fave proffessor waiving the book and saying "now what?" and he said. "We lost one!" The chapters on higher education are remarkable. This book will fuck you up... in a good way
Hahaha the more I interact with it the more I agree. It's beginning to change the way I look at the world the more it seeps in
This reminded me of when I tried (years ago) to understand what Baudrillard meant by simulation, I struggled for a week or two and then gave up. You did a better job than me! I must confess that getting more mature in my academic pursuits I started to wonder if it was me who was at fault or if there was maybe a "shared blame". BIG UP.
Hahaha I can totally relate. Were it not for the wonderful driver of the video I would have been happy with the vagueness of saying yeah I kinda get it that's cool. The pressure to put together something coherent definitely forced me into getting a better grasp than I would have and I would still say I don't have an amazing grasp
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Donald Hoffman's "User Interface Theory" seems, to me at least, to be a close relative to this view: th-cam.com/video/qNo-oWS8VUo/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUYaW50ZXJmYWNlIHRoZW9yeSBob2ZmbWFu
This is excellent. I’d love to see you come back to this. What you touched on in the ethnographic example reminds me of Shrodinger’s cat. The act of observation has an impact on a subject and outcome. Also Baudrillard’s simulation is a paradox similar to quantum superposition it’s at the edge of human understanding. Of course I could be talking out of my arse....love the channel. 😃
You come across as a ‘regular’ bloke James who finds things interesting so you research and explore what is fascinating. You show humility which is relatable in relation to the subjects you discuss. Oh the sound quality is great....’on point!’ as I think the kids say.
Ah thanks Danny delighted to hear that the audio is up to standard (and in such 'hip' language as well XD) and also happy to hear that I don't sound like an egomaniac!! Thanks for the kind words and the support as ever Danny!
This was great! I’m excited that you’re going to cover Baudrillard. There is strangely not enough good content about his ideas out there and your interpretation is lucid, nuanced, and intriguing.
Ah thank you! Yeah I think it's the kind of topic that it's hard enough to understand that I get why there isn't as much content. Even when it comes short like this video did I think it's important to make these attempts and to try and understand what the deal is here
I see Plato everywhere. However, one - there is no way out of the cave, two - we nail and cross over the perfect version of the simulated model without realizing it.
Baudrillard is very very poetic. One must have a subtle sense of reality to get the idea.
Also, the best manifestation of the simulation is the Christmas Spirit. People try to manifest it, but something is always missing. And cinnamon and hot chocolate and presents won't bring it back alone.
Ooh that's an interesting example Daniel. There's just layer on layer on layer of symbols in the attempt to unearth the Christmas spirit. And you see so much media about this struggle to reach the reality of the forever lost christmas spirit. That's a gem!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy is there not some distinction between a first person or (first quadrant), metaphysics and a (third quadrant).cultural critique..
@@michaelmcclure3383 you've caught me beyond the edges of my competence michael and also very much whetted my curiosity. Can you elaborate more on the distinction? The third quadrant cultural critique I get but can you expand on the first quadrant metaphysics in this context?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy its just something I heard from Wilber. He said the problem with science with regards to Consciousness (and by that he probably means materialism), was the demand for objective proof within the limitations of a third person perspective. Thus making it some kind of object of observation.. physical or conceptual... When in fact it's the very Consciousness of rhe scientist themselves and is never anything objective.
So extrapolating on that I thought about the definition of 'reality'. If its presence or absence is considered something phenomenonal or representational, then it's a different definition to that of a first person perspective, where the reality is never taken to be something observable or objective in the first place.
I don't see how a reality that is prior to appearance can be negated because of the changing flux of appearances over 'time'. Only a reality that has some beginning in time might be subject to that. Therefore, I wondered if there might be a distinction in the way reality itself is concieved of here in Baudrillard versus Plato and Parmenides.
So in terms of our quadrants, Plato would probably be in the 1st and Baudrillard would be in the 3rd. Meaning they're addressing different things? Just wondering what you think about this.
It's not the most brilliant thought James, just something I was considering looking a bit deeper into this. Because this question of Being and Reality.. it needs a very specific definition I think or we just resort to materialist notions..
@@TheLivingPhilosophy maybe more simply, a first quadrant metaphysics would be just to say that Being/Awareness is not a thought, or any appearance. If Awareness was a thought then thought could think, but it can't.. its insentient. Therefore, Awareness isn't subject to the kind of rapid change that thought it subject to, let alone the much slower oscillations of rocks. It's not in time, it doesn't change, it's not itself an object that came into existence through some cause and will one day cease to exist.
I think a lot of modern philosophy might have unexamined materialist assumptions when it comes their definition of reality.. or no reality. They deconstruct everything on that basis, but rarely do they provide the proofs for their theories that they demand of others.
Have you seen the book The Great Chain of Being?. It's a book that sets out to dethrone Plato and replace him with relativism and the continental scholastic tradition. There is a great lecture by Pierre Grimes on it that I think is available on TH-cam. It's an interesting examination of the massive differences between Platonism and the Continentals that eventually morphed onto the post modernists.
I've noticed someone like Wilber seems to acknowledge the wisdom traditions while also making space for the more relativist and post modern thinking. Surely he can only do that if he knows they are addressing different things. Hence the developmental model and the quadrants. . If he was a pure post modernist he'd flatland everything... just get rid of everything that came before in an effort to bring about an intellectual year zero haha. In fact, that's one of his big gripes about metamodernism, that they seem to exclude the wisdom traditions.
Another great explanation of the hyper market! Nice work
I have just recentrly read the book and I need to thank you very much for this video. You have a brilliant talent in promoting and finding the most interesting ideas and thoughts from a book or thinker and present them in a very interesting way! Can't wait to see more videos like this!
Thanks vak!
Awesome that this is so recently and expertly, done, thanks for keeping the thoughts alive!
Ah thanks Jamie! Glad you enjoyed it and didn't feel like I did a complete disservice!
baudrillard got into trouble in the early 90s when he claimed in 3 articles that the gulf war had never happened, he covered the war from the comfort of his home without going to the conflict zones, because the reality did not matter, what would reach the world would be the reports of the important news in each country, the horror of the war would not reach the world but a film, a copy of the reality imposed by the dominant ideology. It is not that this war did not happen and that there were no victims in it, quite the contrary, the reality does not cease to be so in its pain, but for those not affected, for the rest of the world, the images shown on television are the memory of the war, a simulacrum, an assumed lie that we take as truth.
the gulf war existed, of course, and the death toll proves it, but what the world saw was not the reality of the war, but a simulation that usurped reality, a continuous reproduction of crude images that made the horror tolerable. Because images cannot capture something unrepresentable like pain, anguish, fear and misery.
I remember reading about a soldier in the Vietnam war who was shot and had something like a NDE. In his words it was the greatest experience of his life, yet from an outside observers perspective it was pain, anguish and so on...
Therefore, even a first hand observers perspective is unreal, or unrepresentative of the first person experience. . Let alone the imagery of war after the fact.
This is the problem of looking for 'reality' as some observable, objective something..
I think it has more to do with people having NO imagination or empathy & the reason for that is that the evils have poisoned us so much, most humans lack those 2 very important elements of being Human & life.
Maybe he should have said it was a manufactured war by the evils just like they create ALL wars. sigh
Really enjoying your vids, great work! I'm tempted, though am probably mistaken, to suggest that a possible foundation from which to observe Baudrillard's idea of simulation would be Heidegger's modes of authentic and inauthentic Dasein, described in Being and Time. Not to oversimplify either thinker, but the core ontological ideas of both warrants a certain comparison, one that could be further traced through the development of phenomenology - Merleau-Ponty, Levinas and others - These are ideas that outline the capitulation of the human spirit to the hegemony of the postmodernist/technological world, but also observe the historical inauthentic mode of Being-in-the-world. That is in no way meant as a Luddite, anti-tech stance by any of these thinkers, in fact it's the opposite, an endorsement, albeit cautionary, of technological potential. I think what Heidegger describes in The Question Concerning Technology, The Origin of the Work of Art, and On The Way to Language, could be helpful in beginning to approach Baudrillard's work.... sorry, rambled on a bit...
Ah man just in time for the next Matrix movie. I also struggled a lot with this book, Rick Roderick's lecture on it helped though and this video also helps explains things, thanks!
Haha I know right! I'm gonna do another one close to it. It's amazing I just had the itch to watch the matrix movies again and a couple of weeks later BAM a trailer for the Matrix 4. Can't wait!! Also thanks for the lecture recommendation I suspect that might be a massive help for me with future videos
I feel the argument of Beaudriard with regards to simulation vs reality is that we live in a society where we spent so much time defining every single concept our reality is made of, that we ended up living in a world that isn't 'real' anymore, in the sense that we actually build our reality off of the concepts we made out of it, and not the other way around. There is no more mystery, no more wonder, everything has to fit in, and what doesn't fit in is discarded. Everything is but manipulation of the mind, to such extent that we can't even see anymore that we are being manipulated, while there is no escaping it because no matter how you look at things, they're all 'circular' as Beaudriard would say, meaning that whatever argument you make, it could ultimately lead to its opposite, and vice versa. So we are stuck in a simulated reality made of simulacra of real processes that are in permanent distortion.
I find it strange that the English version is called 'Simulation and simulacra' while in French it's 'Simulacres et simulation', I'd think putting Simulacra first is not a coïncidence and should have been kept that way.
Its definitely the nature of conceptualisation to be polaric and circular.
Reminds me of Parmenides
"Now then, I will instruct you; hear what I say:
Two paths are open to investigation.
The first says: being is and nonbeing is not.
It is the path of certainty, because it follows the truth.
The other says: being is not, therefore nonbeing is.
This misdirected path, I tell you, cannot lead to a sound conviction
For, if this statement were true, it would not be possible for you
to conceive of nonbeing, nor to name it.
Speaking and thinking necessarily arise from being, because being is.
And nonbeing is not. I invite you to reflect deeply on this point,
And to move away, in your search, from that other path
As from the one traveled by those ignorant mortals
Who are the men of two minds: the uncertainty which resides in their hearts
Misleads their wavering reason. They are swept along,
Deaf and blind, benighted, the masses without discernment
Who pretend that being and nonbeing are simultaneously identical
And different, they for whom, for any statement, the opposite is equally true"
Amazing, this channel deserves a larger audience
Haha thanks Ross! All in the fullness of time I'm sure!
Such a wonderful intro on simulation! Thanks a lot
The first simulator is a product of human working-memory and executive function. 2nd-tier simulators (tools) including technologies, stories (movies, tv, radio, podcasts), all of which are derived from the 1st simulator of working-memory. From there, we might say that environments simulate relationships, the universe simulates order... perhaps? But distinguishing lower-order cosmic simulation is hard when the 1st simulator, the metabolic machinations of working-memory in the animal nervous system, is still not fully understood.
Good review of a frustratingly complicated read. I was going crazy tying to find a definition of simulation for my students.
really digging the videos, man :)
Awesome! Thanks again Mo!
Closest anyone has come to make it clear what this means and why it’s so important. Excellent job.
Thanks William! Still a ways to go before it's fully clear but some of the fog cleared at least I hope!
Fascinating stuff mate
Thanks Eternalised!
Great stuff here. I haven't read this work but I do think everything exists and only through a process of synthesis (subtraction) we "manifest" our reality quite like a simulation.
Ooh interesting take William thank you!
The emotional texture that I'm getting here is C. S. Lewis in the Great Divorce, in which the denizens of hell dwell in a place from which ENS (being) has been subtracted, and they try to "be" in a place in which being is flaming brighter than they can bear; they don't like it; most go back. Baudrillard, in that analysis, is dimly conscious that he is in hell . . . but can't be more than dimly conscious, because consciousness itself is a gift from the brighter realms which he enthusiastically does not believe in. Even an explicit and highly charged religious discourse wouldn't reach him, as he would simply deploy his "Empty of all meaning! Empty!" gesture, in that direction.
On a practical note, addressed to sufferers of Baudrillarditis, not-masturbating is a very effective cure for that gross feeling of looking out onto a world that is empty of meaning. The longer one goes . . . the more the world is charged, everywhere, with highly illusionary, highly charming NYMPHS OF MEANING.
But insofar as the French are sensualists, this is a hard lesson for them to learn. ;(
that one regular car reviews episode really prepared me for this
You are correct, this is rather dense material. But where I end up with it is a feeling we are experiencing a simulation of the simulation.
I really enjoyed this, thank you!
Thanks Gabriella!!
I guess its like how I think that a cheesburger and french fries and a soda pop and an ice cream are an actual wholesome meal that I can get at like any number of places in my town for less than 10 bucks. Awesome video explaining this.
When I fall out of love with the hypermarket, I go camping for a week and my passion for it returns. Guaranteed!
Hahaha just need a break from the simulation now and again Applebee's 🤣
I have watched some videos on Nietzsche, and I am now reading Beyond Good And Evil. Nietzsche brought me to adopt a line of thinking that might connect with Baudrillard's matrix theory (at least how you present it in the video since I heard about it for the first time). My line of thinking goes like this:
We have believed (and still believe) for a very long time in religions, philosophies, various ideologies, and belief systems that go against our instincts.
All this continues, and the more it keeps going, the more we separate ourselves from reality.
For example, what is seen now very often is the idea that suffering is intrinsically bad, so we create morality that opts to deny our own biological needs for not causing suffering (for example, like in antinatalism) or denying the truth (for example, saying weight doesn't affect health because saying so would hurt some people), etc.
I could continue talking about it for hours, but in a few words what I want to say is that we have adopted so many unnatural morals and ideas that we are entirely alienated from ourselves as a being. Hence we live in a matrix created by synthetic ideas.
I hope what I say makes sense and is relevant.
Unfortunately you are missing a HUGE puzzle piece.
We are slaves & the evils control us & the entire world.
They want people to be unhealthy so we don't fight back. This isn't a surprise. Just like they say that we aren't male or female, we shouldn't have relationships, have children, should eat fake toxic food & so on.
Everything in our reality is created by them & b/c most people are followers & low IQ, they just accept what they are given & obey their slave masters which harms the rest of us who do actually have a functioning brain (sort of).
How the evils tie into simulation I don't know, other than I assume they control it. I'm still investigating.
thanks for the help in understanding i understand a little better
Imagine you have a map that is so detailed it covers the entire territory it represents. Over time, people might start using the map more than the actual territory. Eventually, they might even forget the real world underneath and only rely on the map. Baudrillard argues that in our modern world, we often prefer the "map" (symbols, media representations, etc.) over the actual reality. This "map" becomes more real to us than the real world, leading us to live in a "simulation" of reality rather than reality itself.
great Video on Baudrilliard
Thank you!
I feel like you explained the idea of simultaion pretty well. I'd like to introduce something, a non-perspective you could call it, which I feel gets at the heart of what Baudrillard was trying to get at and in a way both shatters and illuminates his perspective. I can only give a sketch here and can in no way cover this from every conceivable angle, but then, there's always more to say about everything.
I want to speak about non-duality, and to put it very simply, there are two diametrically opposed views that both go under the term "non-duality." By far, the more popular understanding of non-duality says that all is consciousness and that this all-pervading consciousness that simply IS the substance of all that exists can be called the Self, the one Self, or it can be called "no-self" (such as in Buddhist terminology) to contrast it with the tradional understanding of some sort of permanent soul or essence that we are. It could be argued that the Self and the no-self are different understandings of reality, and I won't try to argue that they are not, buy where the overlap is that they define a human beings true nature, and, for the most part take that definition to be unproblematic and sufficiently accurate to be called the truth.
But there is another understanding of non-duality that says that any description of "what is" is insufficient and problematic. People in this camp call themselves speakers and never teachers, for, this is an equally important point that separates this latter understanding of non-duality from the former, is that the speakers say there is nothing to teach and no one to teach it to. There is not even a thing called liberation, enlightenment, or awakening; there is only ever just THIS. In the same way to say that the true nature of reality is that there is just "The Self" or that there is no self and that that statement accurately points to the truth are both equally untrue because to use language is to speak in and of duality, which reality is not. A self, whether capitalized or not, implies an "other," as well as a "no-self," and a "no-self" implies the existence of a self and another. No word can be spoken without implying the existence of it's opposite.
So non-dual speakers say that "what is" cannot be spoken of or described in any way, much less something that can be "gotten to," experienced, known, own, or be had in anyway. There can be no teaching on how to "get" to that which is already-ever-all-that-is. The non -dual is the seamless whole, and nothing else but IT "exists." From the non-perspective of the whole all concepts become obsolete, empty, meaningless, which is what Derrida was getting at. He just failed to recognize that it applies to all phenomena, not just concepts. Of course, all phenomena are only concepts, only abstractions of the undivided whole.
And to get back to the non-dual teachers, to try to label that wholeness as consciousness or such is to imply it's opposite. From the whole there is no thing including some "thing," however elusive, called "consciousness," or a "conscious being," or even "being," "reality," "existence," "non-existence," "birth," "death," "life," etc.
Some of the better known non-dual speakers out there are Tony Parsons, Kenneth Madden, Andreas Müller, Jim Newman, among other. Some of the most popular non-dual teachers who are all bringing duality into the picture through the backdoor arr Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira, Gangaji, Sailor Bob, and yes, even Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi. Any appeal to another, any "teacher" who has some practice, prescription, or advice to offer is appealing to an "other. For those who truly see no one anywhere and "see" nothing but undivided wholeness can necessarliy NOT give a practice because it is clear from where no one is that there is no one to help or give anything to.
And sure, there is the appearance of another; there's the appearance of this whole world. But, and I think this is where all philosophers and pretty much all us humans have gotten lost; we take that appearance to be reality. We don't see the other half of "some thing," that there is simultaneously "no thing," that behind everything there is nothing. There is nothing with a self, a center, a source, invluding the universe as a whole, no God, no Source, no Ground, no Grand Intelligence to be found by any religion, spirituality, or science.
But this is where all religions, spirituaties, sciences, and all humans get hoodwinked; they all, without question, believe in the reality of the self, their own self, and with that reality the world is by default, unavoidably divided up into subject and object, self and other, and with that the world becomes real, what appears becomes real, and with something that can be real comes something that can be false something that can be unreal, be an illusion, be a simulacra.
I believe that what Baudrillard points to with the word simulation is what the non-dual speakers are pointing to when they say that all phenomena is an appearance.
I want to throw another idea, kind of abruptly here, into the mix but I hope it fits in and makes sense. All the non-dual speakers I have come across all say that "this," "what is," is unconditional love appearing as ALL phenomena, including the most heionous things we could imagine. And they all say that this is not something that can be understood or experienced, but it simply is so. A completely unsatisfying explanation to a self that by default exists with the need to know and understand.
So, I think that Baudrillard's idea of the simulation goes much deeper than he ever imagined. To live in a simulation is to be taken in by one's appearances as being real, and therefore, by necessary polarity, possibly unreal. And the first veil, the original simulation, the original "artificial intelligence," is, in fact, the oh-so-convincing feeling "I am." The appearance of being someone is the illusion that creates the simulation of living in a subject/object world, a world of self and other, when, in reality, that is all just an appearance that never, at any point or time (two other non-existent appearances) ever even exist.
There is only ever wholeness, nothing appearing as everything. But believing that there is a self creates a story about that self, creates a story about something called time, something else called space, and with them appears the past and the future, and soon enough everything experienced becomes merely one's concepts of what is and not wht is beyond all conceptualization.
People fear wearing glasses that overlay the world of the Internet upon the "real" world, but the so-called "real" world is already a world of unreality where non-existent "selves" touch, taste, smell, hear, and see nothing but there concepts about a non-existent world of non-existent subjects and objects. The self, the "me" IS the simulation and the simulacra. WE are the artificial intligence.
But none of this is right or wrong, or good or bad. Those are just more made-up-things (i.e. concepts) of the self, or you could call it the "self/other" since you never have one without the other.
Most (though I have not heard all say this) of the non-dual speakers say that the sense of "me" is an energetic contraction in the body around which the story of self naturally forms, snd that there is no why or how this energetic contraction appears or dissapears. Though they all say it is unique to humans but serves no useful or beneficial purpose and that the "natural" state is to recognize that there is and never has been anyone home. And also, that hearing this can at least loosen one's belief systems.
So ain't that a trip, to recognize that the "me" is the simulacra and simulation, that which we think is most real, no matter our belief system, is utterly, always non-existent. And there ain't a thing one can do to get rid of their self for that self is always already a mere mirage. Baudriallard was right that there was no escape. He was mistaken, like all of us are, to attach a right or a wrong, a good or a bad, a meaning or a purpose to it all. It just is. And the only veil that hides nothing that appears as everything is oneself. When all we know are the appearances the world, if we peer close enough, still taking ourself to be real, look, among other things, like a simulation where there is no exit.
But if the apparent veil that appears as oneself happens to fall away then the apparent simulation will go with it and all that will remain will be the indescribable, and to further use the this tool of dualism, language, to describe what is "not-two" one will finally see the real in all it's glory.
Thank you!
I find this very interesting. The example of the hypermarket leads me to wonder if Baudrillard implies that simulation is on a scale, rather than something being either simulation or not simulation.
Baudrillard's omnipresence of the simulation does remind me a little bit of Guy Debord's work, where he presents us to a world of images that is organized by images, with no possibility of an escape. I mean, I never actually read Baudrillard, but listening to your video, I felt some resemblance.
Fascinating! I came across him a lot in Eribon's biography of Foucault but haven't gone near him yet. Looking forward to exploring him and seeing more of what you mean!
Very interesting episode, looking forward to upcoming videos on that matter.
I wonder if existential dread is the only thing that can come out of this idea. The fact that simulation is becoming something more prevalent in the minds of people, it's both reassuring and worrying at the same time. It fills one with curiosity, because of possible next advancements in this field, but also a concern about the upcoming wave of nihilism.
Indeed. Baudrillard was a self-proclaimed nihilist so it figures. At the start of his career he seems to have been enthusiastic about how to manage it and ways to overcome the condition. As time went on he seemed to become more of a commentator just noting it
Interesting comment. This concept sounds similar to the spiritual idea of the Ego and I’ve found that I’ve slipped into nihilism several times upon such realizations. I suppose the joy is found when you stop participating in the simulation…
What's wrong with wanting to know the truth as humans we evolve to question our very existence yet as crazy as people might make you feel are they just too stupid or ignorant to question their existence or are they suppressing the very idea out of our curious minds ??????????????????
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Overall I was quite surprised he already was covering this idea in the 80s. I thought it was a recent thing. Although I'm not surprised that after some time it got to him, it's a concept that's very hard to grasp for our limited minds and it's easy to become pessimistic.
@@keithlol I'm not familiar with the Ego from a spiritual perspective. Can you briefly explain it to me?
the problem with simulations is that the main proof that it exists is how real it feels. The more real the feel the more it is potentialy a simulation and a better simulation is. it is a paradoxical feeling that grants you no stable ground (no referent). When everything is "done" nothing is done.
We all become hypothetical .
Very good
Not only do we use language to communicate with others, but we also use it internally to communicate with ourselves about ourselves and our experiences, to define ourselves and the world around us. And language is a system of symbols that is both a product of culture and an influence on it. Then there's the fact that we don't actually "see" anything directly. Light waves bounce off of objects, enter the pupil, get translated by retinal rods and cones into electrical impulses that the brain puts together. Then there's the problem of memory. Memories are notoriously erroneous. We can even "remember" things that never happened.
Our ancestors had their consciousness wrapped around their deism, their classes, their clans, their nationalism, their faiths and their honors a long time before our post-WWII chasms. Postmodernism shattered our structure of modern at our roots nearly 6000 years ago.
Bravo, sir.
The supermarket example was great. Like a mouse in a maze we may be going threw things but aren't really living. As for trying to grasp what a simulation it us like the movie Inception 2010 where at the end of the movie you dont know if the top ever stops spinning, showing that we dont know if we are still in a dream. Similar to the mutliverse theory in Justice league Crisis on two earths where owlman tries to make a decision and at the end says "it doesn't matter". We dont know if what we are doing is a simulation or dream until of course we wake up, but of course it doesn't matter.
I don't know, I do know when I'm awake & not awake, but maybe that's just me.
Wow, so interesting, thanks! I love The Matrix and didn't know about this book and its importance to the movie.
Btw, can I ask you something... how did you do the 'The Living Philosophy' animation at the beginning of all your videos? Did you pay someone? If so and if you don't mind saying, how much did it cost??
Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it Dean! The logo animations I got done on fiverr it looks like it cost be about a tenner (euros) and the guy gave me three or four different varieties. This is a link to the guy I used www.fiverr.com/hatmans/do-best-logo-animation-intro-videos
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I see. Thanks so much!!
Dude. Ok. I’m gonna have to watch this again and read the book. I see immediately why you find it so fascinating…one quick thought occurred to me. The exact same things can be said about the spiritual or mystical reality…perhaps
Ah fascinating. Yeah I think if you look at what a lot of sages are saying it's a similar thing. The idea that we were ever not in a Baudrillardian simulation might be something that they would cast doubt over. All Maya
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Maya can be utilized by ego or can be penetrated by the Mystic. I’ve finally watched this video and the one you did on the matrix as well as others relating. I still think you did a fantastic job actually, so much so that (thankfully) I don’t have to read Bouldrillard’s book. I went through all the arguments and points (I think) that you presented in the videos. And yes, not surprisingly, I side with the Mystic’s take. To argue that we are without a referent, an ultimate inherent referent, is Bouldrillard being a “Cassandra” for egoic thinking (why he was so against the Matrix movies in the first place…”Me thinkest thou dost protest too much.” The idea of a separate private consciousness is false. The Mystic states that you live in glass houses, to Consciousness itself. I could speak with you for an hour on this topic and these videos of yours, and would very much welcome the opportunity, but I’ll get to the point. You mentioned that “love and connection” is what is missing from the hypermarket. There is your referent, the only one that stands outside the illusion. Religions, tribalism, Bouldrillard himself is the hyper reality, the ultimate simulation. Or is the Mystic in Zion? Is the Mystic the Hyperreality, the ultimate simulacra? I think it is clear where I stand, perhaps penetration clear:)
@@OneConsciousnessWithAaron Yeah own personal take Aaron would be that we may be in a simulation but that the mystic always has the potential to cut through to the ultimate reality. Once we have the cogito ergo sum we have something solid we can work with it's a starting point that cuts through all illusions (potentially). To my mind it is possible for someone in a simulation I create to cut through more layers of illusion than I have. The shared thing at all levels of the simulation is being and so the same keyhole is presented at every level. What's one extra level of illusion. If you could escape from the matrix you are still quite possible in a matrix - it's turtles all the way down as they say. The mystical offers a way out. But one might also question how you know that this too isn't simulated - an illusion generated by the fat sac between your ears. That's layer of questions yet again. As for a chat I'm always keen!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy keen indeed!
I’m having great fun my friend:)
and so is the fat sac between these ears
A suggestion on how to easier connect with Baudrillards ideas: Relate the term "simulation" with "samsara" and continue to look at his ideas through the lense of buddhist cosmology, which has had many hundreds of years and teachers to put this difficult truth into a more accessible form. There is indeed nothing outside the simulation.. There is the emptiness of both the simulation but also the emptiness of the self, in other words no self. It would be interesting to see you do a new analysis like this, drawing the dots that connect with Baudrillards philosophy to the Madhamyaka philosophy of emptiness.
I never resonated with Buddhism & you just confirmed it LOL
We are ALL social animals & when we aren't, everything goes downhill.
I like your honesty
Thanks Y L! I don't think there was any other way for me to make this video. FAR too many gaps in my knowledge!
Dope vid, I was curious if you ever read or listened to Terrence McKenna. You should definality do a video on him. The best and my favorite.
Ah I have of course heard of the great Terence and I've heard his very interesting voice but I've never listened deeply to his content. Maybe it's about time to do a deep dive on him soon. Any favourite videos or books or articles you'd recommend?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy my comment referenced him twice! I while his books are interesting his spoken word is far more satisfying. The “We Plants are Happy Plants” have a ton of great videos. Easy to listen to while you go about your day.
Great video sir! I know you don't know me, but I would love to have you on my podcast. I'm relatively certain you're out of my league but I figured I'd ask anyways :-)
Regardless of your answer, please keep up the great content. Its very enjoyable and informative.
Hi Joe that's an awesome offer I'll send you a message through your own streams it sounds like it could be a lot of fun!
The book was absolutely remarkable, but incredibly challenging to absorb and comprehend. After much contemplation, I came to the realization that I may have grasped only a fraction, perhaps around 5%, of its content. It consumed my thoughts for weeks, pushing the limits of my mind as I attempted to unravel its meaning. It's frustrating that there are likely numerous profound truths within it that elude my complete understanding, and it leaves me feeling both intrigued and unsettled.
Here are some potential perspectives on the concepts I managed to grasp. I invite you to critically examine and challenge these arguments:
While it is true that our contemporary society is saturated with images and representations, it doesn't necessarily mean that these simulacra have completely replaced reality or stripped it of meaning. Simulacra and simulations can be seen as tools of communication and expression rather than complete distortions of reality.
Furthermore, it can be argued that the distinction between reality and representation is not as blurred as Baudrillard suggests. People are generally able to differentiate between the real and the simulated, and they can consciously engage with and interpret representations in context. While representations and media may shape our perceptions to some extent, individuals still have agency in determining their own beliefs and understanding of the world.
Additionally, the concept of simulacra and simulations doesn't take into account the diversity and complexity of human experiences. Reality encompasses a wide range of tangible and intangible aspects that cannot be reduced to mere representations. There are still genuine human interactions, emotions, and physical experiences that cannot be fully replicated or replaced by simulations.
Amazing appraisal bro wow
Presemtly writimg a meta book revisiting my unfinfinished phd which was centred around Baudrillard and virtual reality which i came off the rails on in mid 90"s- becausr it was in many ways, unfinishable- probably. It was called 'The Unfinishing Nattative'. I think you have done well to address the subject. Guy Debordd was for me equally as significamt as Baudrillard for his denunciation of post modetn existence. R.I.P. His suicide is hatd to follow on from.
Thanks prop I must study Debord more in depth I've come across the name quire a bit but don't know much about him
4:35 “the pm philosophers were the Cassandras” (paraphrased)
This, my friend, is the most poignant thing to know about postmodern theory for anyone talking about it. It’s the first thing everyone with a negative view of it misunderstands. If we could only get this across to more people we’d be so much more successful in our discourse.
There was a time when humans were integral to an ecosystem. In the living of our lives we played a role in maintaining homeostasis within the biome. We did not think about it, it was our lives we lived it. We hunted, gathered and in doing so we helped perpetuate the environment. Somehow we realized that we could make our lives more sustainable by fighting against that very environment that we were integral to before. At that moment our lives became a simulation.
The way you explain it it seems like the Simulation is Memetic, the evolution of idea.
The fact that both Wachowski brothers became sisters says a lot about where French philosophy has taken us and what it means for modern humanity thought. But let's not question it lest we upset the supreme rulers of the modern age...
Yeah, those pesky Albanians. (By the way, the grave of Sabbatai is in Albania.)
They both bragged on stage about stealing a female relative’s panties
Baudrillard's concept of Simulation is a very easy idea to understand - it is naïve to begin reading Baudrillard with Simulacra and Simulation because the work employs a rhetorical method first laid out in Seduction. If you want to understand Simulation read Baudrillard's 1976 Symbolic Exchange and Death. The idea is that, essentially, at a certain point in the 20th century (Baudrillard specifically points to the economic crisis of 1929), the processes of capitalism entered into a crisis (overproduction and not enough consumption) and, instead of breaking down as Marx thought, capital revived itself and its structures of power as 'simulation' - consumption began to be produced so as to give production a purpose once more, labour itself was emptied of its social finality (i.e in deindustrialization) so that it could remain as a pure form, so as to maintain the domination of capital. Simulation occurred when our systems were emptied of their social finality so as to be reproduced indefinitely. Again, labour is a great example in this respect - read David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs for example, a book which details how almost or over half of the workforce in the west work jobs without any productive purpose. We 'simulate' labour.
Great stuff thanks for the input! I did later learn what you've said and must return to Symbolic Exchange and to Seduction and then I think I will reread Simu and Simu. Also been meaning to read Graeber's book on debt for a while. He's a name that keeps cropping up
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Symbolic Exchange is really, really good. Super relevant during COVID when I first read it !
@@limpjim4000 Ah really very interesting. I'm looking forward to checking it out
This was a very well-crafted simulation of Beaudrillard's philosophy.
Haha thanks Mark...I think 😆
8:33 from which book did you find these words ? Is it really his own words ?
Its typically easier to simulate rather than realize something? So if simulacra is a spectrum and the further we go into the future the more things become simulated at some point there is no escape and no differentiation
Might it be summed up in "art imitates life imitates art..."?
I enjoyed this video, especially the attempt to define Baudrillard's terms. I think the terminology is part of what makes it difficult to work with, we have a different sense of "simulation" these days. I think of simulation and simulacra as something like a recursion - we start with reality-prime, which inspires cultural representations thereof that, in turn, influence reality-prime and generate second order realities themselves, then third order, etc. These are like projections, or overlays, that sit over reality-prime, but can obscure or distort it. The biggest fear, which I think is at the root of Baudrillard's analysis, is when the functional link or relationship with reality-prime is severed, when the nod back to fundamental reality is no longer included in the simulacra. This creates an emergent "plausible deniability" that permits (or simply is?) a corruption of our grasp of reality, because the overlays can be manipulated in a way that reality-prime cannot, and we do not have an immediate path back to reality-prime, nor a comparative function by which to assess the credibility of the simulacra.
Hello there! I trust your opinion, any must-read philosophy/theory works youd recommend?
I can't praise anything higher than Nietzsche Ben. I'd recommend The Gay Science as an amazing book that has all the best of him it's his most personal book and just mind blowing. Maybe more than that there is Beyond Good and Evil - read the first three aphorisms for that and you'll be sold I imagine!
If no one can define "Simulation" as written about by Baudrillard, then in all probability this concept of his is an unintelligible phantasm in his head. It's simply a sign without a referent, and therefore nothing to worry about. That doesn't mean that he isn't pointing to certain real problems in our civilization, but those problems likely aren't the result of some eternally inescapable and incommunicable monster called "simulation" that Baudrillard somehow discovered when he cracked the code of the matrix (movie pun intended).
Perhaps you could find more answers and clarity by going back to Baudrillard's influences. I've noticed for example, that he uses a lot of Bataille's language and terminology. Also, what is his relation to Guy Debord and the theory of The Society of The Spectacle? It seems like there is a connection there.
That Fight Club reference was pretty funny. 🤣
Oh yeah I'd forgotten about that 😆
we’re basically in a game, a game that is up to us to figure out the meaning of
I asked chatgpt to give me 5 examples of simulations we live with. All were computer based. Like social media accounts, VR games, online webinars, etc.
Then I asked it for examples predating computers and the internet. It mentioned advertising, theme parks, theater, news media, and literary fiction.
I kind of feel like what we talk about in coms as "mediatization" is fundamentally the of the same essence as this simulation. It's the subject of our experience being essentialized to a logic that is man made and that in turn shapes humans.
Mediatization is the logic of the media. Supermarkets are the logic of primarily money.
Fascinating. Also McLuhan was a name that came up a lot in Simulation and Simulacra so this would make sense
For me, the most interesting facet of the reference to Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra in relation to The Matrix is how the contents of the book have been cut out in order to hide Neo's discs in Winston Smith diary style ... it's like saying the modern world is the problem - but this book isn't the answer. I don't agree with that synopsis - but that is the intent in cutting out the words like when a gun or a child's money box is hidden within the missing pages of a fake book.
edit - read Zamyatin's We if you've not done so
Interesting take awotnot and thanks for the recommendation
Much respect for you, your work, insight and communication skills. I've never met anyone who has gone six rounds in a boxing ring, or surfed a six foot wave, to be confused about whether we live in a simulation or a real physical world with real and permanent consequences. Of course the definition of the simulation would be meaningful for a thought experiment, but equally meaningless for our actual human experience.
Except of course waves are one of the most impermanent things you can think of and there's no such thing as a fighting match whose results stay locked in stone, with injuries that don't shift , crystal clear memories, perfect data, etc.
All of it's ever shifting, if you asked even them about it in those terms they might give you a different response.
I am so jealous of your hair 😊😊😊
A friend shared this vid with me and I have not watched it all but I am curious to know if you still believe there is no way out? If not why and if there is a way out, do want to know or comfortable here in this one?🤔
Interesting (mis)use of Wittgenstein. Good to illustrate the point tho.
How do you feel about hypermodernity? Do you feel it can be an organic transition from postmodernism, and as affluent? I actually think Chris Nolan and Roddenberry were the first hypermodern artists.
'we now live in an entirely simulated world' what my mind grasps from that statement; not necessarily what was meant by Boudrillard, but I would imagine that from the beginning of humanity, from the first homosapiens that came hundred thousands years back(or who knows when...) we been simulating and creating reality around us with our perceptions, we as humans were building social structures, cultivating understanding of the world around us. For e.g maybe even the nature that was here before us, wasn't the way it is now, before we could see it and process it with our minds. So in a way, we are unconsciously creating a simulation that we are living in, and everything we know about the world, about quantum physics, about whatever else.. is simulated; some things, maybe all of the things, might had no need to exist before we gave 'meaning' to it. And now, in the present, everything we can perceive or know of is artificially simulated over the time span, without a thought in mind; how it really was, or is. So without our collective consciousness giving meaning to it, it does feel like we lost something, and we don't know what we lost.. and everything is entirely simulated, maybe.. if that makes any sense :D
I always felt like the idea of simulation Is referring to the nature of being human, we can only view the reality as it manifests within our brains.
Thank you for taking on Baudrillard's simulation. Fortunately the simulation is not so scary as it seems. It's a laboratory that we will leave it as soon as our consciousness leaves the body. This illusion and entrapment was already thoroughly dealt with by Vedic philosophers thousands of years ago. It is nevertheless important for being here to understand the simulation, illusion and trap.
Your market example is very well-chose. Stay as free as possible.
I feel like we are forcefully living out someone's imagination, they are delivering in a philosophical way.
Does anyone know who this author is and how I can email him regarding ideas on this topic.
Maybe Baudrillard is saying we basically live in a made up fantasy of history and cultural traditions that have no true basis in objective history. When we read books from the past, we automatically take them out of context, therefore negating the work's true historical context while we place our own personal lens onto a past that we'll never be able to actually perceive accurately
One question. Where did the presenter study?
Was talking about this in class today, or at least I think I was...😉
Oh yeah!? Haha awesome! I'm left wondering whether I was talking about it in this video as well 😂
If you asked Baudrillard, his answer would be :::worm sounds:::
Life is a dream comes true;
And death is its awakening from this simulation.
"It's like reading Beyond Good and Evil for the first time." Noted, I will steer clear of this book 😂
Hahaha yeah it's one of those rewarding but testing experiences. It's definitely nice to read a book that stretches you and makes you feel stupid. Good way of keeping Socratic humility but it can't be done every week for sure XD
I am reminded for some strange reason of a populist book my parents had growing up. It was called “The Medium is the Message”. By some wild man named McLuhan. My folks had no interest in such things but it fascinated me. The idea of culture as a tapeworm or the serpentine swallowing it own tail. Later I stumbled upon an Indian guru who studied for a philosophy degree but never finished instead going about negating all things slaughtering all sacred cows with equal glee. Our lives are so thoroughly saturated in the synthetic, till there is no way out and even if there was we aren’t going back to Eden, the ground is cursed, we are cursed. Other than that everything is awesome 😉
Ah wow! You've hit the nail on the head Brad - Baudrillard talks about this book a lot and wrestles with the idea of "the medium is the message" a lot in the book. Definitely a VERY relevant idea. Would you recommend reading McLuhan? And is the Indian guru Osho by any chance? I remember someone saying he studied philosophy
Remember what the garden myth says drove Adam and Eve out of the garden? The KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Basically the knowledge of the opposites.
There is an anecdote about the sixth patriarch of Zen, a monk goes to see him where he is living on top of a mountain and asked for his instruction. The sixth patriarch says "now without conceiving of good or evil, go to your original face before mother and father were born.
@@michaelmcclure3383 Interesting koan. Is he trying to point to non-duality with that? I'm a total heathen when it comes to koans (though thinking about it I guess that's kind of the point)
@@TheLivingPhilosophyits like a koan but I believe it was instruction right there on the spot. The story to my knowledge is told by Huang-po.
To me it's ahout discarding the primary pairs of opposites, good and evil.. birth and death. As Joseph Campbell says, "Maya is the field of opposites, beyond that there is no such thing"
In the non duality of Shunyavada and Ajatavada they finally negate all the opposites. Bondage and liberation, creation and destruction, destiny and free will. How this works is that from the Self or Awareness perspective there has never been bondage, so how can there be liberation, there has never been creation (birth) so how can there be destruction (death) and so on. So it's a negation of conceptualisation itself really.
Baudrillard's negation of reality and illusion I find interesting. Partly because of the definition of reality.. I'm not sure how he's defining it. In Vedanta for example reality (satya) is defined as unchanging, unmodified.. and illusion called Mithya is defined as appearance, that which changes. This changing includes states like dream waking and so on. Its the most important distinction in Vedanta, but even that gets negated in the end, because if indeed phenomena are as good as non existent (possessing no existence of their own but only what is granted by Existence), then what is the need for a concept of the non phenomenonal.
But what's left is full, plenum, ineffable. its not a void. Actually an objective void is just another concept, an imagined absence. That brings me to my favourite Haung Po quote haha
"People are terrified to empty their minds, fearing they will be engulfed by the void. What they don't realise is that their own Mind is the Void"
@@michaelmcclure3383 that's a golden line! I love the playing with Baudrillard the Advaita the Zen and the presocratic edge in there as well. Lot of big ideas and it really puts Baudrillard in a much bigger frame which I think is a great one to look through. You do ask a good question - what does he mean by reality. I'm not fully sure what the answer is but I think that taking this broader hypothesis of simulation that he has we seem much closer to the all-encasing Maya
Was the Tasaday tribe a good example? Seems to be alot of doubt about their authenticity.
I assume Patreon is your *nom de camera?*
COOL
His simulation concept seems to be related to the Hindu-Buddhist idea of Maya, or the Veil of Illusion. In this way 'reality' would be a kin to the Buddhist concept of 'Emptiness' or 'Voidness' perhaps?
i'm new to this idea, but i think Simulation is any construct that replaces culture with 'some deliberate goal'.
your example of a market would not be a Simulation, since it was 'an accident'; a market is an emergent property, something that happens naturally from interaction. a supermarket would be a Simulation, since it puts the cart before the horse - a supermarket is tailor-made for its makers' intention, rather than emerging as an accident.
so culture [going to a market, getting your shit, socialising, etc.] was neglected in place of 'profit' [the deliberate goal] - but Simulation only survives as long as it keeps to that purpose. in order to keep to that purpose, it needs some ability to exert control, which made the matrix metaphor real easy to tie in.
here's why i'm not impressed with the idea [assuming i'm understanding it lol]: Simulation can only persist as long as it maintains control, but there's no guarantee any construct can do that - the Desert of the Real can always be reseeded. with enough awareness and/or discontent, there's always the possibility of Reclamation, something black philosophers talk about in a different context.
Capitalism is the most obvious example of a 'successful Simulation' [and also why the Matrix movies have HEAVY DUTY anticapitalist themes], but even capitalism is challenged on the regular. all you could say in counterargument is that the Simulation, despite being realised to be crap, persists anyway. the whole 'too big to fail' schtick, but any buzz phrase would do - the point is that we recognize it as bad, but on and on it goes. i think this last part is what Baudrillard was worried about, but he never went the extra mile to recommend praxis :3
Reminds me of Taoism in eastern philosophy. The Dao cannot be grasped nor described.
The simulation is not simply the existence of the simulacra and the mediums that present them but the inextricable association of the simulacra with the real object it once presumed to represent before being copied and recopied in an inadvertent parody that leaves a person unable to disentangle their own perceptions of a real object from the simulacra that have already informed them; thus, even if a person interacts with a real object, they will impose what they know of simulation and the composing simulacra on top of it, never able to cross the chasm they never saw and, after submersion in the simulation, never can-- we, individually, reproduce the fire in Plato's Cave in the plain light of day, seeing only shadow projected onto substance, if anything at all
That said, this is a human experience that has always existed in various forms throughout recorded history, albeit less comprehensively
This feels like exactly the read I’ve been looking for lately. The concept reminds me of an old quote on pornography; “I know it when I see it”.
Though I’m kinda feeling that it makes it hard to not inherently make everything a simulation, a human program we collectively agree to run. Am I confusing the idea of a simulation with “anything we simulate”?
I can’t help but see this as systems of belief, and then think of the scene with the bald guy eating steak, “I know it’s not real, but..•
Hmmm...you're thrown some interesting cats among the pigeons there. The thing is with the guy with the steak - there's no reality anymore so why note relish what there is. At least this is going by Baudrillard's point. This guy is playing the game of illusion - he knows it's an illusion but doesn't mind. But the thing with Baudrillard's simulation is that there is nothing outside the simulation there is nothing more real because the real has fallen away and we don't know what that is any more. It's inaccessible. So I would stay the steak guy is a separate issue.
Just looked up the history of I know it when I see it and it gave me a chuckle and a hmm. I think the question about whether it's something that we run is interesting but I think that Baudrillard's simulation is such that we could never know that we are running it. It ensnares us rather than being something that we consciously sandbox. That's what's so insidious about it. It's such a tricky protean thing so hard to grasp
considering the example you gave (simplified), “a tribe is taken out of their environment and is now wiped out, in theory”
If the premise of that tribe meeting modern society is what eradicates them, “kills them to know them”, isn’t that just experimentation and catalysts?
if the guy eating the steak “knows” it’s a simulation, wouldn’t our own knowledge of Baudrillard’s simulation also be a point of it? In said moment, baldy isn’t consciously in a vat hooked to tubes. By that, he’s aware of it, but only in theory, much like we are now with Baudrillard’s Simulation, only in theory. We don’t really know we’re running it, we’re just thinking there’s a thing we might be running. Also, if the idea is that the post-modern age forced us all into said simulation, wouldn’t that simulation just be the collective “nations”, “religions”, etc.?
If the tribe “is brought in” and “eradicated”, then the natural state of being is the only real departure from it. but that would mean we’re stuck in that sort of Hegelian “man aware is no longer man”? I really need to read this damn book.
Also, kinda funny that Baudrillard’s simulation is abbreviated to BS.
also side note, “know it when i see it” does have a poor history! i just meant it as an example of “a mutually indentifiable concept”
How about this. Yes, we are all living in a simulation. A simulation each of us creates in our mind. You could say that the mind is a best guess generator, the result being what we perceive from second to second. Cues from the present are melded together with experience from the past, that is the simulation input. Also what we are looking for in a situation also has its effects. My guess is that there is some slight variance between people in this process.
Listen to his guy, particularly how he gathers. He acquires and then assimilates things that are not factual even in the mind of imagination, in short, his knowledge simulacrum.
This reminds me of the mystic ideas, except it's darker maybe? These multiple layers of reality have been showing up in quantum physics as well so he's probably on to something here.
Does Baudrillard have a hypothesis on why we would need multiple simulations? What does he think the purpose would be?
In the Matrix the projected reality was designed so the government would have power over the populace, and it was run by a computer program. Does Baudrillard say how he thinks we get the multiple realities in our world?
The idea of multiple worlds and unknowable realities running parallel are common beliefs in mystical and religious teachings.
We have all heard about the angelic interactions and the dead ancestors who surround us to protect us. It is mentioned in pretty much all cultures across the globe.
In Christian teachings, we hear that Christ and His mom were able to pop in and out of known realities. This one is tough to prove but, interestingly the story of this is the reason why Christ's philosophies are at the core of our western thinking.
And of course, right here today we can see Yogi who can be physically present with us but their bodies can act outside of physical laws because they can tap into another stream of consciousness. They have direct access to a parallel world that allows them to avoid the rules of the one we are in.
These stories and ideas point to a projection of another layer of reality where others can break free from the concrete world but still stay connected.
In the Jewish religion, the Kabbalah teaches that shards of other realities are embedded in our reality. These shards of light from other realities are crucial and they push us toward a meaningful life when we pick them up.
With all these mystical and religious teachings, the purpose of these multi-dimensions is explained as a way to get closer to an all-powerful God who is the source of all life. So I'm curious if Baudrillard has thought about why his multiple simulations would be in his mind. Is it for the power of a government, like in the matrix, or is it just some quirk of nature?
My soul agrees with the idea of multiple realities. It's not scary to me, it's beautiful as it's always on the hunt for the divine and the meaningful.
I'd never heard that Kabbalah idea that is absolutely fascinating! I'm not sure where Baudrillard fits in with all this. He's unlike them all I think in that he doesn't see the simulation as being something consciously created. It's not a constructed virtual reality like the Matrix and it's not a mystical idea. It's more...and I guess it's this novelty of the idea that is causing me to struggle to fully grasp it but it's that we are entrenched in a complex system and as our world has gotten more complex it's a case of the uroboros as another comenter mentioned - it's the snake of culture eating its own tail. The dynamics of the system have led to us losing all touch with reality. Of course there's definitely a power element to it as well in Baudrillard's view but I haven't quite explored that part just yet so I guess he would lean more to the power/control side than the mystic side for sure
"If we were able to take as the finest allegory of simulation the Borges tale where the cartographers of the Empire draw up a map so detailed that it ends up exactly covering the territory, this fable would then have come full circle for us, and now has nothing but the discrete charm of second-order simulacra." Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation #Metaverse
What I've been trying to understand is, haven't we always been in a Baudrillardian simulation?
Units of language aren't the thing, but symbols which refer to the thing. Yet, without language, we wouldn't be what we consider human. Sure, such a person would still biologically be _H. sapiens sapiens,_ but others wouldn't regard that person as "normal." A major part of being human is socialization, and language-or some other medium of symbols (e.g., maths)-is required to communicate ideas, to socialize.
So, it sounds to me like Baudrillard is romanticizing a reality which never existed for human, or perhaps for any conscious entities. For even plants communicate, but even then the "map is not the land." And, even if linguistics isn't as important as evidence indicates, it's still the case that we don't experience reality as it is, but as filtered through sensory organs, memories, and associated emotions. Are qualia not subjective simulacra?
And in the end, so what? Just as with solipsism, what ought we do with the information if it was proven to be so?
Personally, I find the Vedic "simulation" concept of māyā more compelling. As, not only does it give us a direct to head, but even if it turns out to be incorrect the actions taken still benefit the whole. And, not just the whole of a community or nation or even humanity, but the whole of all conscious beings.