2 ms·

Well, Baudrillard said that all of reality is already a simulation, since everything has been replaced by symbols representing those things. Therefore, surely a

Well, Baudrillard said that all of reality is already a simulation, since everything has been replaced by symbols representing those things. Therefore, surely all of the things you say about the internet also apply to, say, eating a nice dinner from vegetables you grew yourself? Hyperreality isn't just about brands or explicit simulations. Remember that Baudrillard says the map covers the entire territory: there isn't some corner of human life that we can retreat to. The Real has already been surpassed, never to be returned to. I suppose you disagreed with that aspect of the book you recommended?

lordfrito 3y ago
Yeah agreed. This conversation itself is in cyberspace. But it's just degrees of abstraction. I prefer being more mentally tethered to "the territory" rather than "the map". The territory is what it is (the laws of physics being unchanging). The map is constantly changing based on things that only matter to those who prefer the hyperreal. I supposed I have my "private map" of the world which rules my behavior -- I tend to refer to that rather than let an outside map (The Internet) guide my actions. I work in hyperreality, I make my living in hyperreality. I remind myself that I do this in order to live better in the real world around me. My house, the land around me, the people I know in person, are far more important to me (and worth worrying about) than the symbols I endlessly encounter during my workday. Articles like this are just nonsense as they have no practical use to me (and I suspect most living along side me) in the territory that I inhabit/value.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal, even your grandma who has never used a computer is living entirely in the hyperreal and has no access to anything other than simulacra. The food she eats, the water she drinks, the sky she looks at, etc. Even the "laws of physics" are simulacra. There is no such thing as "the real world around you" according to Baudrillard. I don't think you quite understood the book you recommended
  - lordfrito 3y ago
    I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > 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. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal. It seems the only difference between us is that I value a map that more closely resembles the territory, and your opinion is that it doesn't matter, they're all of equal importance?? sigh
    - bowsamic 3y ago
      "I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > 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. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal." Let's ignore all that. I moved on to interrogating your (mis)understanding of Baudrillard. According to the book you recommended, there is no "real" that you can retreat to. You seem to talk about how your life outside of the internet is the real, but Baudrillard wrote the book before the internet was even a thing. He was talking about your normal life, not the internet. It's not about what I think, it's that you recommended to me a book that you quite strongly disagree with...
  - erik_seaberg 3y ago
    > After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, “I refute it thus.” —James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson
GauntletWizard 3y ago
Baudrillard describes a way of thinking of the world, one that is inherent to human thinking. You can't escape the fact that your mental model of the world is the only way you know the world; That's axiomatic, just a repetition of Plato's Cave. He extrapolates that into a theory about the way society interacts with itself; Most individual agents doesn't interact directly with most things. They have a mental model based on the ones they've touched, and assume that when someone else talks about a teapot that that teapot matches their mental model. When you talk about a teapot, my mind imagines it as my ideal teapot, until you add descriptors and detail. Still, however, it is "my ideal teapot" + "Descriptors" and in no way the teapot in your mind. On aggregate, that works - Our interactions with teapots are mostly the same, and it doesn't much matter whether I'm imagining a blue teapot and you a pink. They get filled with water and put on the stove to boil. As Software people, we're especially susceptible to reducing objects and experiences to the sum of their functions. We even have a word for it - Duck Typing. A teapot is a teapot because it boils water and pours it into cups; We can say that any old pot is a teapot if we add a funnel adapter, a kettle is a teapot, a tin can is a teapot, etc. In reality, you don't use a tin can as a teapot, because it's not convenient. You need gloves to handle it, or you'll get burned. It doesn't hold much more than one cup. It's not really washable and reusable. In Analog but not Analogy, a tin can is not a teapot. Modern philosophy is entirely based on equivocation. A tin can is a teapot, therefore all teapots are hard to handle for heating water, so why bother heating water, anyway? It's stupid and soliphistic. This article, like so many like it, is trash and the author should be laughed out of the room. Instead, there's a giant cancerous mass of this bile replacing literature and journalism.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  You seem to be saying that Baudrillard is simply talking about Platonic forms but I don't think he says anything that suggests this.

lordfrito 3y ago

Yeah agreed. This conversation itself is in cyberspace. But it's just degrees of abstraction. I prefer being more mentally tethered to "the territory" rather than "the map". The territory is what it is (the laws of physics being unchanging). The map is constantly changing based on things that only matter to those who prefer the hyperreal. I supposed I have my "private map" of the world which rules my behavior -- I tend to refer to that rather than let an outside map (The Internet) guide my actions. I work in hyperreality, I make my living in hyperreality. I remind myself that I do this in order to live better in the real world around me. My house, the land around me, the people I know in person, are far more important to me (and worth worrying about) than the symbols I endlessly encounter during my workday. Articles like this are just nonsense as they have no practical use to me (and I suspect most living along side me) in the territory that I inhabit/value.

bowsamic 3y ago
No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal, even your grandma who has never used a computer is living entirely in the hyperreal and has no access to anything other than simulacra. The food she eats, the water she drinks, the sky she looks at, etc. Even the "laws of physics" are simulacra. There is no such thing as "the real world around you" according to Baudrillard. I don't think you quite understood the book you recommended
- lordfrito 3y ago
  I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > 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. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal. It seems the only difference between us is that I value a map that more closely resembles the territory, and your opinion is that it doesn't matter, they're all of equal importance?? sigh
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    "I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > 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. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal." Let's ignore all that. I moved on to interrogating your (mis)understanding of Baudrillard. According to the book you recommended, there is no "real" that you can retreat to. You seem to talk about how your life outside of the internet is the real, but Baudrillard wrote the book before the internet was even a thing. He was talking about your normal life, not the internet. It's not about what I think, it's that you recommended to me a book that you quite strongly disagree with...
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  > After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, “I refute it thus.” —James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson

GauntletWizard 3y ago

Baudrillard describes a way of thinking of the world, one that is inherent to human thinking. You can't escape the fact that your mental model of the world is the only way you know the world; That's axiomatic, just a repetition of Plato's Cave. He extrapolates that into a theory about the way society interacts with itself; Most individual agents doesn't interact directly with most things. They have a mental model based on the ones they've touched, and assume that when someone else talks about a teapot that that teapot matches their mental model. When you talk about a teapot, my mind imagines it as my ideal teapot, until you add descriptors and detail. Still, however, it is "my ideal teapot" + "Descriptors" and in no way the teapot in your mind. On aggregate, that works - Our interactions with teapots are mostly the same, and it doesn't much matter whether I'm imagining a blue teapot and you a pink. They get filled with water and put on the stove to boil. As Software people, we're especially susceptible to reducing objects and experiences to the sum of their functions. We even have a word for it - Duck Typing. A teapot is a teapot because it boils water and pours it into cups; We can say that any old pot is a teapot if we add a funnel adapter, a kettle is a teapot, a tin can is a teapot, etc. In reality, you don't use a tin can as a teapot, because it's not convenient. You need gloves to handle it, or you'll get burned. It doesn't hold much more than one cup. It's not really washable and reusable. In Analog but not Analogy, a tin can is not a teapot. Modern philosophy is entirely based on equivocation. A tin can is a teapot, therefore all teapots are hard to handle for heating water, so why bother heating water, anyway? It's stupid and soliphistic. This article, like so many like it, is trash and the author should be laughed out of the room. Instead, there's a giant cancerous mass of this bile replacing literature and journalism.

bowsamic 3y ago
You seem to be saying that Baudrillard is simply talking about Platonic forms but I don't think he says anything that suggests this.