Thanks for a gracious and self-effacing open essay. Having not read the principal text I had the theories of C.G. Jung pop to mind, there may be no connection whatsoever. He (Jung) did apparently set impassive and take notes and came to theorize that dreams were revelatory about energies (gods) actually living us and I think he coined the term “synchronicity”, and odd connection of apparent otherwise diverse experiences brought together. Just a steam of consciousness response.
As a complete lay philosopher, it seems to me that a key difference in simulation vs. reality is the access to 'ground truth,' the absolute knowledge of what anything is or should be. I don't think that we're just surrounded by simulations in supermarkets and wilderness preserves, our perception itself is the most pervasive form of simulation we confront.
Interesting point. I think Baudrillard would say though that our perception is a copy of reality. So that's a first order simulacra (a copy of a reality). But simulation is the fourth order simulacra. He says it this way in the book:
"Such would be the successive phases of the image:
it is the reflection of a profound reality; it masks and denatures a profound reality; it masks the absence of a profound reality; it has no relation to any reality whatsoever; it is its own pure simulacrum."
This final stage — having no relation to any reality whatsoever and being its own pure simulacrum — is what Baudrillard calls simulation. At this point there are layers upon layers of meaning which are no longer obfuscating reality but are obfuscating the fact that there is nothing behind their mask — they are copies of copies of nothing. I still don't feel like I've gotten to the bottom of his point but I hope this clears things up some little bit
Thanks for graciously handling my shot from the hip there, I do see what you (and Baudrillard) are saying more clearly now.
I've started going through Simulacra and Simulation, it seems difficult but rewarding. I think it's interesting that for such an abstract concept (in some ways, an ultimate abstraction detached from anything real and floating in a void), Baudrillard uses some really concrete examples to illustrate simulation. It seems that the totality of the simulation we find ourselves in is a summation of many sub-simulations. That must be why there are cracks in it. Like, if we were completely and irrevocably immersed in a simulation as a species, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no reason to question anything, right?
As stupid as it sounds, I wonder about the negative connotation of simulation. Being cut off from everything real indefinitely is bad, sure, but dreams, however detached from reality, still have value. The ancients heard from the gods in dreams, and even we moderns can process emotions better if we pay attention to our dreams.
Sometimes, this simulation-talk can come across as anti-technology, but if there is anything we can learn from the examples of purest simulation it is that there is no going back. Holding on to the past, only increases the potency of simulation. I'm a software engineer, so I'm always pro-technology, probably to a fault, but I think the way forward is to lean into technology, not reject it.
This is an addictive concept. Something about how close it seems to my mind and yet so hard to define is the crux of the matter, I think. It feels important to be able to define simulation and see how much it has crept into my life so far. Even just last night watching TV, I couldn't help but wonder how much of a simulation the sitcom was that I was watching...
Haha not at all. I still don't fully understand this stuff myself so every attempt to talk about it and try to wrestle with it deeper is helpful. The book is definitely challenging/rewarding. In my research (after reading the book unfortunately) I learned that it's a terrible place to start with Baudrillard and that this very much builds on his earlier work. So it might help to start with something like Symbolic Exchange and Death first. Maybe. Give S&S a go and see how you find it but definitely don't get discouraged if it's tough — you're diving in at the deep end.
You raise a good question about the sub-simulations. What you're saying sounds right to me and yet I don't know Baudrillard enough to confidently say for sure.
The question about dreams however is very close to my heart. I would actually say that it's the exact opposite in that case. While it is technically psychotic in the scientific sense, I would see it the other way. Jung once said that dreams are pure nature. They are bubblings up of nature in its rawest form. They are unwished for, unconsciously formulated contents. This is why I find them so valuable because they have not been interfered with by our conscious minds nor the conscious minds of others. Not that dreams are infallible Bibles or anything like that but they are honest in their own peculiar way. They are not copies of copies of copies like the reality we are living in is. They play the same role of balancing the psyche as they did a thousand years ago only the reality principle side of the equation has changed its form quite a lot.
You are definitely right about going back. We are gone from Eden and there's no real point in turning back. Also I don't think that simulation is an anti-technological point of view or not specifically (unlike when it is presented in the Matrix in which case it is). It's a cultural complexity of which technology is a big part but it's not the head demon by any means.
It's definitely a powerful idea and actually I don't think I mentioned this in the article but Baudrillard says that it must be called a hypothesis. It can never become more than a hypothesis because the simulation is inherently ungraspable. It's wild stuff!
Love this post! I’ve been going down the Baudrillard rabbit hole and appreciate your analysis as one of the deplorably few out there.
As a very small step towards remedying that, I’ll say that I belive one can realize — or, put differently, believe — they’re in a simulation without being able to define it. My intuition is that it’s not the awareness of the simulation that means you’re “not in it,” but rather the attempt to define it and its boundaries.
Would a simulation be the reality we are lead to live in which we are not purposefully creating for ourselves ? Ie: living in the consumer system, or living in nature with more spiritual connection. ? Asleep vs awake.
it doesn’t have to be a different reality like stepping through a portal, just a different point of view means a different reality/simulation
Very interesting subject though
cheers Craig.
Ps. lol, I’d certainly hate to wake up like neo did
I know right! That looked like a goddamn trip through Hell (that was probably the idea I guess). I think simulation is definitely a matter of a different point of view (for Baudrillard anyway). Although I guess that's a bit of an understatement since it's a point of view that's welded to your eyeballs. It's not even possible to return to nature because even that image of returning to nature is a warped simulacra. The whole thing is a mess
To quote Taylor Goldsmith, my favorite songwriter, of the band Dawes:
It starts existing as a miracle, the band of static right behind your eyes, that you filter everything through, without knowing you do: a past and future synthesized.
I believe that the nature of the simulation lies in what constitutes your filter, which is a function of the various hyperrealities.
I think the simulation has intent and an example is the non-entropy pattern we see in organic evolution. Answers the question is the cosmos a “friendly” place? I think the simulation is consistent (truth, principal) an example is found in our current understanding of primitive AI or the models (paradigms) that we use in science. It seems intent on generating life (an example is our unlikely leap to consciousness). It is “one thing” whether we call it psyche, soul or common consciousness. It has intelligence, we are experiencing the great illusion of “not nothing (something) vs nothing (answers the obvious question of the illusion of time/space. Time (the binary disturbance of nothing/not nothing) came first, space is a function of time.
Is Baudrillard using simulation as a way of describing what we would call "culture"? All human culture is premised on simulation (the reality of cultural members is adjacent to, but unable to fully encapsulate Reality. Said another way: all cultures operate off of imperfect models of reality), this also tracks with how once you recognize you're in a simulation, you cease to be within the simulation - understanding the relative limitations of your culturally defined experience.
I believe so. One of the latest examples of this I’ve seen is the difference of opinion re whether Elon Musk threw a Nazi salute. I think the only person who can “know” for sure is Musk, and anyone else’s belief is informed by their belief about his intentions, all of which (even including Musk’s opinion!) is informed by their simulation/hyperreality.
Thanks for a gracious and self-effacing open essay. Having not read the principal text I had the theories of C.G. Jung pop to mind, there may be no connection whatsoever. He (Jung) did apparently set impassive and take notes and came to theorize that dreams were revelatory about energies (gods) actually living us and I think he coined the term “synchronicity”, and odd connection of apparent otherwise diverse experiences brought together. Just a steam of consciousness response.
As a complete lay philosopher, it seems to me that a key difference in simulation vs. reality is the access to 'ground truth,' the absolute knowledge of what anything is or should be. I don't think that we're just surrounded by simulations in supermarkets and wilderness preserves, our perception itself is the most pervasive form of simulation we confront.
Interesting point. I think Baudrillard would say though that our perception is a copy of reality. So that's a first order simulacra (a copy of a reality). But simulation is the fourth order simulacra. He says it this way in the book:
"Such would be the successive phases of the image:
it is the reflection of a profound reality; it masks and denatures a profound reality; it masks the absence of a profound reality; it has no relation to any reality whatsoever; it is its own pure simulacrum."
This final stage — having no relation to any reality whatsoever and being its own pure simulacrum — is what Baudrillard calls simulation. At this point there are layers upon layers of meaning which are no longer obfuscating reality but are obfuscating the fact that there is nothing behind their mask — they are copies of copies of nothing. I still don't feel like I've gotten to the bottom of his point but I hope this clears things up some little bit
Thanks for graciously handling my shot from the hip there, I do see what you (and Baudrillard) are saying more clearly now.
I've started going through Simulacra and Simulation, it seems difficult but rewarding. I think it's interesting that for such an abstract concept (in some ways, an ultimate abstraction detached from anything real and floating in a void), Baudrillard uses some really concrete examples to illustrate simulation. It seems that the totality of the simulation we find ourselves in is a summation of many sub-simulations. That must be why there are cracks in it. Like, if we were completely and irrevocably immersed in a simulation as a species, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no reason to question anything, right?
As stupid as it sounds, I wonder about the negative connotation of simulation. Being cut off from everything real indefinitely is bad, sure, but dreams, however detached from reality, still have value. The ancients heard from the gods in dreams, and even we moderns can process emotions better if we pay attention to our dreams.
Sometimes, this simulation-talk can come across as anti-technology, but if there is anything we can learn from the examples of purest simulation it is that there is no going back. Holding on to the past, only increases the potency of simulation. I'm a software engineer, so I'm always pro-technology, probably to a fault, but I think the way forward is to lean into technology, not reject it.
This is an addictive concept. Something about how close it seems to my mind and yet so hard to define is the crux of the matter, I think. It feels important to be able to define simulation and see how much it has crept into my life so far. Even just last night watching TV, I couldn't help but wonder how much of a simulation the sitcom was that I was watching...
Haha not at all. I still don't fully understand this stuff myself so every attempt to talk about it and try to wrestle with it deeper is helpful. The book is definitely challenging/rewarding. In my research (after reading the book unfortunately) I learned that it's a terrible place to start with Baudrillard and that this very much builds on his earlier work. So it might help to start with something like Symbolic Exchange and Death first. Maybe. Give S&S a go and see how you find it but definitely don't get discouraged if it's tough — you're diving in at the deep end.
You raise a good question about the sub-simulations. What you're saying sounds right to me and yet I don't know Baudrillard enough to confidently say for sure.
The question about dreams however is very close to my heart. I would actually say that it's the exact opposite in that case. While it is technically psychotic in the scientific sense, I would see it the other way. Jung once said that dreams are pure nature. They are bubblings up of nature in its rawest form. They are unwished for, unconsciously formulated contents. This is why I find them so valuable because they have not been interfered with by our conscious minds nor the conscious minds of others. Not that dreams are infallible Bibles or anything like that but they are honest in their own peculiar way. They are not copies of copies of copies like the reality we are living in is. They play the same role of balancing the psyche as they did a thousand years ago only the reality principle side of the equation has changed its form quite a lot.
You are definitely right about going back. We are gone from Eden and there's no real point in turning back. Also I don't think that simulation is an anti-technological point of view or not specifically (unlike when it is presented in the Matrix in which case it is). It's a cultural complexity of which technology is a big part but it's not the head demon by any means.
It's definitely a powerful idea and actually I don't think I mentioned this in the article but Baudrillard says that it must be called a hypothesis. It can never become more than a hypothesis because the simulation is inherently ungraspable. It's wild stuff!
I'd like to talk dreams and the unconscious more with you, if you would like. ltjones [-at-] syreal [-dot-] cc
FWIW I feel like this short article captures the nature of a simulation/hyperreality (more in the form of questions than statements) very well.
https://criticallegalthinking.com/2018/04/27/did-baudrillard-foretell-the-advent-of-fake-news/
Love this post! I’ve been going down the Baudrillard rabbit hole and appreciate your analysis as one of the deplorably few out there.
As a very small step towards remedying that, I’ll say that I belive one can realize — or, put differently, believe — they’re in a simulation without being able to define it. My intuition is that it’s not the awareness of the simulation that means you’re “not in it,” but rather the attempt to define it and its boundaries.
Glad to hear it Matt! And thanks for the link to the article. Looks like an interesting read
Would a simulation be the reality we are lead to live in which we are not purposefully creating for ourselves ? Ie: living in the consumer system, or living in nature with more spiritual connection. ? Asleep vs awake.
it doesn’t have to be a different reality like stepping through a portal, just a different point of view means a different reality/simulation
Very interesting subject though
cheers Craig.
Ps. lol, I’d certainly hate to wake up like neo did
😳 I’m hoping it’s not that bad but who knows...
I know right! That looked like a goddamn trip through Hell (that was probably the idea I guess). I think simulation is definitely a matter of a different point of view (for Baudrillard anyway). Although I guess that's a bit of an understatement since it's a point of view that's welded to your eyeballs. It's not even possible to return to nature because even that image of returning to nature is a warped simulacra. The whole thing is a mess
To quote Taylor Goldsmith, my favorite songwriter, of the band Dawes:
It starts existing as a miracle, the band of static right behind your eyes, that you filter everything through, without knowing you do: a past and future synthesized.
I believe that the nature of the simulation lies in what constitutes your filter, which is a function of the various hyperrealities.
I think the simulation has intent and an example is the non-entropy pattern we see in organic evolution. Answers the question is the cosmos a “friendly” place? I think the simulation is consistent (truth, principal) an example is found in our current understanding of primitive AI or the models (paradigms) that we use in science. It seems intent on generating life (an example is our unlikely leap to consciousness). It is “one thing” whether we call it psyche, soul or common consciousness. It has intelligence, we are experiencing the great illusion of “not nothing (something) vs nothing (answers the obvious question of the illusion of time/space. Time (the binary disturbance of nothing/not nothing) came first, space is a function of time.
"Yes" -- SimulationCommander
Is Baudrillard using simulation as a way of describing what we would call "culture"? All human culture is premised on simulation (the reality of cultural members is adjacent to, but unable to fully encapsulate Reality. Said another way: all cultures operate off of imperfect models of reality), this also tracks with how once you recognize you're in a simulation, you cease to be within the simulation - understanding the relative limitations of your culturally defined experience.
I believe so. One of the latest examples of this I’ve seen is the difference of opinion re whether Elon Musk threw a Nazi salute. I think the only person who can “know” for sure is Musk, and anyone else’s belief is informed by their belief about his intentions, all of which (even including Musk’s opinion!) is informed by their simulation/hyperreality.