Do We Live in a Simulation? Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra

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!)
________________
Media Used:
1. Anguish — Kevin MacLeod
2. Lightless Dawn — Kevin MacLeod
3. New Frontier — Kevin MacLeod
4. There’s Probably No Time – Chris Zabriskie
_________________
⌛ 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

[TheLivingPhilosophy]

Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page
💸 Patreon:


⌛ 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

[scottbentley]

"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.

[ivavines]

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

[Mon]

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.

[dylanbuckle]

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. 😃

[dlloydy]

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.

[authenticcinemapodcast]

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.

[JJJeeettt]

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.

[danielmuresan]

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.

[mesomeso]

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.

[Appleblade]

When I fall out of love with the hypermarket, I go camping for a week and my passion for it returns. Guaranteed!

[Vak_g]

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!

[doyle]

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!

[migg-e]

Another great explanation of the hyper market! Nice work

[GlobeHackers]

Nice work. I'll have to explore your writing and videos to figure our why you are obsessed with Jamie and Daniel. You'll get over it. Thanks much

[bluetensormedia]

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.

[PhilosophyToons]

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!

[PavltheRobot]

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.

[chrispmar]

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.

[gavmc]

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...