4 ms·

> 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 s

> 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...

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...