4 ms·

> As if this stream of nonsense matters to anyone or anything in the real world. I'm a little confused at what makes you think that the internet is not include

> As if this stream of nonsense matters to anyone or anything in the real world. I'm a little confused at what makes you think that the internet is not included in the set of things considered to be real

johnea 3y ago
It's not the internet that's not real, it's the dream space that it induces in it's victims. This is the same as the dream state involked by, say, reading a novel, or watching a movie, or even going into that out-of-body experience that occurrs when someone is immersed in code development, or painting. But the dream state invoked by the internet is interactive, personallized, and orders of magnitude more potent than any of those traditional media pathways. What's not real is what the human is imagining while they use the internet. It's a fantasy world. And while transcending to a fantasy state is essential for imaginative innovation, like solving a hard programming problem, it's equally essential that those benefits be brought back to the real world, physical 3D reality. This is the part that doesn't happen with the fantasy escape of trending "nonsense". The meme-speak is just a medium of expression for the illiterate. Really sad that once again "girls" are just a means of enforcing mindless consumption for the benefit of ownership. This break from physiccal reality has been abrupt, and near ubiquitous, and quite likely the end of the modern world order...
- bowsamic 3y ago
  > This is the same as the dream state involked by, say, reading a novel, or watching a movie, or even going into that out-of-body experience that occurrs when someone is immersed in code development, or painting. I don't understand. All those things are real to me. What definition of real are you using?
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    You may find Lacan's conceptualization of The Real, The Imaginary, and The Symbolic as helpful in navigating this space. There's some obvious connections between Baudrillard and Lacan but it's best summed up like so > There is no clear evidence that Baudrillard deployed Lacan’s theory consistently, as Baudrillard himself did his best to erase the footprints of employed sources; yet, Baudrillard’s knowledge and use of Lacan is something taken for granted by most Baudrillardian scholars[1]. I'll point out that the study of the Real requires a certain suspension of disbelief or a willingness to sit with the tension of not understanding something for a very long time before it starts to make sense. It comes with the reward of understanding or at least feeling like having an understanding of where your subjectivity comes from. And this requires a vulnerability in admitting that a lot of us are quite a bit more subjective than we're willing to admit to ourselves. 1. https://baudrillardstudies.ubishops.ca/the-invention-of-history-lacan-in-baudrillard-part-i-first-simulation-stage-the-classic-age/ https://baudrillardstudies.ubishops.ca/the-invention-of-hist...
    - bowsamic 3y ago
      To be honest, I already am more in favour of pure subjectivity than of anything objectively real. For example, I am a physicist, but I don't think the laws of physics exist. I am just interested in what the others think
      - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        The phenomena which causes particles to exist to have quirky rules governing their interactions is definitely real. Whether that's simulated reality setting parameters on particle interactions or any other kind of reality, it continues to hold our experienced reality in existence. We study the hourglass from inside of the hourglass, and are subject to what happens TO the hourglass. If it's shaken or broken, it can never exist in its previous state again. Likewise we can only guess what everything is like outside of the hourglass. Our reality is inside the hourglass, and we probably can't get out.
        bowsamic 3y ago
        > The phenomena which causes particles to exist to have quirky rules governing their interactions is definitely real. How do you know?
        I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        If we live in a simulated universe, "phenomena causing particles to exist" would be a process driven by whatever is running the simulation. It would "feel" objective to us inside the simulation, but theoretically zooming out a bit would show that our "objective" simulation is actually subjectively based on whatever parameters the simulation computer imposes. In this instance, I argue that the computer we exist on is real as it is imposing laws we are subject to. There's no way to prove it isn't a Russian Nesting Doll where it's simulations all the way down (and up), but if we can't leave our reality to check out the one above us, this is more the realm of philosophy than physics. In a non-simulated universe, the laws of physics as we experience them are imposed by something. Whether that something is just our frame of reference as a collective species trapped in a single area of spacetime or the grand unifying theory we keep searching for, there is some objective measure which regulates physics. Maybe if we find it, we can find how to make it subjective and abuse physics like a speedrunner does in a video game.
  - johnea 3y ago
    I would define "real" as existing in 3D physical reality, not a mental state. One test for reality, given this definition, is to remove all the humans from the scene. Afterward, does the situation still exist? If not, then it's a fantasy state. What many people consider to be "reality", is just humans agreeing to a given abstraction, like money. It's completely fictional. We just all agree to go along with the fantasy (try not going along with it and see how long it takes for guys w/ guns to show up at your door). In many cases the only "reality" to these abstractions are human willingness to exert physical violence against those that don't comply. To reassert from the original comment: not all of these abstractions are "bad", many are necessary for civilized life. But retaining the ability to distiquish the difference is also mandatory for staying grounded in "reality". A condition with is vanishing among many (first world) people...
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > One test for reality, given this definition, is to remove all the humans from the scene. Afterward, does the situation still exist? > If not, then it’s a fantasy state. So, humans themselves are a “fantasy state” and not part of “reality”? Your test seems to be based on a rather bizarre conception of reality that is particularly unsuited for any use by or relating to interests of concern to humans.
      - johnea 3y ago
        Humans are very much a part of reality, but our individual mental state is only very tenuously connected to it. The nuero-electrical activity is very real, but the castles in the sky we imagine these mental states to represent are not. I'm not at all surprised that people don't/can't/won't recognise the difference, as it often directly interferes with an individual's "identity" or other fictional mental states that people hold very dear. Hang on to your "dreams" as much as you want, it's your life! But in the end reality will exert it's dominance. We'll each die, and everyone else will bury us and ignore the reality that was just enforced and continue with their individual dream states... A macro example of this is the "demographic crisis" over declining population, when nearly every physical crisis in progress in the modern world is due to massive human over-population. We'll continue with the dream state, and eventually physical reality will take it's toll...
lordfrito 3y ago
The Internet is pure information, pure virtual space (well it's also computers, hard drives, and wiring, but that's not what people mean when they talk about The Internet). Hyperreality deals with the simulation of the real (both classical/physical simulation as well as idea and mental-model simulation), so much so that the real eventually becomes less important than the simulation itself. At some point the symbols of the simulation begin to take on a life of their own (think of brand logos, the Nike swoosh, the apple with a bite taken out). The symbols begin to have their own meanings apart from reality, welcome to the realm of the hyperreal. The word "girl" is not a real girl, it's meant to "capture" or "represent" what a girl is in communication. We attempt to capture "real girlness" in the words we use and the mental models we build. Over time usage of the word gets perverted, it no longer "accurately" captures the essence of what a girl is, it is a distortion of the real. The word, which started out representing reality, becomes untethered from reality, and starts to take on a life of its own. Eventually you leave behind all pretense of reality, and the word/symbol has it's own inherent meaning that only makes sense in context of the hyperreal. This article only really seems to make sense if you live more in the world of hyperreal symbols, and are less concerned about the real world that the words once represented. A lot of this is due the Enlightenment, as we now live in an "Age of Reason" which is absolutely obsessed with simulation -- everything must be captured, categorized, analyzed, broken down, understood, only to eventually be integrated and manipulated in our mental models (simulations). In many ways The Internet is (or has the potential to become) home for the absolute hyperreal. All that matters to the internet is the relationship between symbols. Are you aligned with the right symbols, brands, products, politics, lifestyles, etc.? Endless bites of "simulated false realities" designed for mental consumption. We yearn for the real, the authentic, while living in an increasingly hyperreal world starving of any underlying meaning. What's more important; The Real, or The Internet's captured and increasingly perverted version of "The Real"? I am unconcerned with the hyperreal when what it claims to represent is untethered from the real world. To some it's deathly serious. I've found my mental health is better staying focused on things that are more real. If you find these ideas compelling I suggest you read up more on it [1]. The book Simulacra and Simulation is a wonderful starting place, really opened my eyes [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

johnea 3y ago

It's not the internet that's not real, it's the dream space that it induces in it's victims. This is the same as the dream state involked by, say, reading a novel, or watching a movie, or even going into that out-of-body experience that occurrs when someone is immersed in code development, or painting. But the dream state invoked by the internet is interactive, personallized, and orders of magnitude more potent than any of those traditional media pathways. What's not real is what the human is imagining while they use the internet. It's a fantasy world. And while transcending to a fantasy state is essential for imaginative innovation, like solving a hard programming problem, it's equally essential that those benefits be brought back to the real world, physical 3D reality. This is the part that doesn't happen with the fantasy escape of trending "nonsense". The meme-speak is just a medium of expression for the illiterate. Really sad that once again "girls" are just a means of enforcing mindless consumption for the benefit of ownership. This break from physiccal reality has been abrupt, and near ubiquitous, and quite likely the end of the modern world order...

bowsamic 3y ago
> This is the same as the dream state involked by, say, reading a novel, or watching a movie, or even going into that out-of-body experience that occurrs when someone is immersed in code development, or painting. I don't understand. All those things are real to me. What definition of real are you using?
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  You may find Lacan's conceptualization of The Real, The Imaginary, and The Symbolic as helpful in navigating this space. There's some obvious connections between Baudrillard and Lacan but it's best summed up like so > There is no clear evidence that Baudrillard deployed Lacan’s theory consistently, as Baudrillard himself did his best to erase the footprints of employed sources; yet, Baudrillard’s knowledge and use of Lacan is something taken for granted by most Baudrillardian scholars[1]. I'll point out that the study of the Real requires a certain suspension of disbelief or a willingness to sit with the tension of not understanding something for a very long time before it starts to make sense. It comes with the reward of understanding or at least feeling like having an understanding of where your subjectivity comes from. And this requires a vulnerability in admitting that a lot of us are quite a bit more subjective than we're willing to admit to ourselves. 1. https://baudrillardstudies.ubishops.ca/the-invention-of-history-lacan-in-baudrillard-part-i-first-simulation-stage-the-classic-age/ https://baudrillardstudies.ubishops.ca/the-invention-of-hist...
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    To be honest, I already am more in favour of pure subjectivity than of anything objectively real. For example, I am a physicist, but I don't think the laws of physics exist. I am just interested in what the others think
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      The phenomena which causes particles to exist to have quirky rules governing their interactions is definitely real. Whether that's simulated reality setting parameters on particle interactions or any other kind of reality, it continues to hold our experienced reality in existence. We study the hourglass from inside of the hourglass, and are subject to what happens TO the hourglass. If it's shaken or broken, it can never exist in its previous state again. Likewise we can only guess what everything is like outside of the hourglass. Our reality is inside the hourglass, and we probably can't get out.
      - bowsamic 3y ago
        > The phenomena which causes particles to exist to have quirky rules governing their interactions is definitely real. How do you know?
        I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        If we live in a simulated universe, "phenomena causing particles to exist" would be a process driven by whatever is running the simulation. It would "feel" objective to us inside the simulation, but theoretically zooming out a bit would show that our "objective" simulation is actually subjectively based on whatever parameters the simulation computer imposes. In this instance, I argue that the computer we exist on is real as it is imposing laws we are subject to. There's no way to prove it isn't a Russian Nesting Doll where it's simulations all the way down (and up), but if we can't leave our reality to check out the one above us, this is more the realm of philosophy than physics. In a non-simulated universe, the laws of physics as we experience them are imposed by something. Whether that something is just our frame of reference as a collective species trapped in a single area of spacetime or the grand unifying theory we keep searching for, there is some objective measure which regulates physics. Maybe if we find it, we can find how to make it subjective and abuse physics like a speedrunner does in a video game.
- johnea 3y ago
  I would define "real" as existing in 3D physical reality, not a mental state. One test for reality, given this definition, is to remove all the humans from the scene. Afterward, does the situation still exist? If not, then it's a fantasy state. What many people consider to be "reality", is just humans agreeing to a given abstraction, like money. It's completely fictional. We just all agree to go along with the fantasy (try not going along with it and see how long it takes for guys w/ guns to show up at your door). In many cases the only "reality" to these abstractions are human willingness to exert physical violence against those that don't comply. To reassert from the original comment: not all of these abstractions are "bad", many are necessary for civilized life. But retaining the ability to distiquish the difference is also mandatory for staying grounded in "reality". A condition with is vanishing among many (first world) people...
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > One test for reality, given this definition, is to remove all the humans from the scene. Afterward, does the situation still exist? > If not, then it’s a fantasy state. So, humans themselves are a “fantasy state” and not part of “reality”? Your test seems to be based on a rather bizarre conception of reality that is particularly unsuited for any use by or relating to interests of concern to humans.
    - johnea 3y ago
      Humans are very much a part of reality, but our individual mental state is only very tenuously connected to it. The nuero-electrical activity is very real, but the castles in the sky we imagine these mental states to represent are not. I'm not at all surprised that people don't/can't/won't recognise the difference, as it often directly interferes with an individual's "identity" or other fictional mental states that people hold very dear. Hang on to your "dreams" as much as you want, it's your life! But in the end reality will exert it's dominance. We'll each die, and everyone else will bury us and ignore the reality that was just enforced and continue with their individual dream states... A macro example of this is the "demographic crisis" over declining population, when nearly every physical crisis in progress in the modern world is due to massive human over-population. We'll continue with the dream state, and eventually physical reality will take it's toll...

lordfrito 3y ago

The Internet is pure information, pure virtual space (well it's also computers, hard drives, and wiring, but that's not what people mean when they talk about The Internet). Hyperreality deals with the simulation of the real (both classical/physical simulation as well as idea and mental-model simulation), so much so that the real eventually becomes less important than the simulation itself. At some point the symbols of the simulation begin to take on a life of their own (think of brand logos, the Nike swoosh, the apple with a bite taken out). The symbols begin to have their own meanings apart from reality, welcome to the realm of the hyperreal. The word "girl" is not a real girl, it's meant to "capture" or "represent" what a girl is in communication. We attempt to capture "real girlness" in the words we use and the mental models we build. Over time usage of the word gets perverted, it no longer "accurately" captures the essence of what a girl is, it is a distortion of the real. The word, which started out representing reality, becomes untethered from reality, and starts to take on a life of its own. Eventually you leave behind all pretense of reality, and the word/symbol has it's own inherent meaning that only makes sense in context of the hyperreal. This article only really seems to make sense if you live more in the world of hyperreal symbols, and are less concerned about the real world that the words once represented. A lot of this is due the Enlightenment, as we now live in an "Age of Reason" which is absolutely obsessed with simulation -- everything must be captured, categorized, analyzed, broken down, understood, only to eventually be integrated and manipulated in our mental models (simulations). In many ways The Internet is (or has the potential to become) home for the absolute hyperreal. All that matters to the internet is the relationship between symbols. Are you aligned with the right symbols, brands, products, politics, lifestyles, etc.? Endless bites of "simulated false realities" designed for mental consumption. We yearn for the real, the authentic, while living in an increasingly hyperreal world starving of any underlying meaning. What's more important; The Real, or The Internet's captured and increasingly perverted version of "The Real"? I am unconcerned with the hyperreal when what it claims to represent is untethered from the real world. To some it's deathly serious. I've found my mental health is better staying focused on things that are more real. If you find these ideas compelling I suggest you read up more on it [1]. The book Simulacra and Simulation is a wonderful starting place, really opened my eyes [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation