Reality vs. Simulation

[artfan]

1. muscles, skin, skull etc. (real)
2. thoughts you associate with 1 (not real)

It does if you choose to name the group of 1 and 2 'your face'. It doesn't change that 1 is real though.

[Strifer]

But whatever it is that's on the screen is as real as anything else that surrounds us.

But the 'soldier' doesn't just refer to what is on the screen but also the fictional character we imagine in our heads. Therefore it can't all be real. Where am I going wrong?

The soldier on the screen is not a soldier; it is like a soldier. And the reason you may come to this conclusion is that in the real world there exists something we call a soldier, so you make a comparison.

So then you are saying that fictional worlds... are not real?

You have to read this over and over again until you understand that you have basically answered your own question.

[artfan]

The author (if you read the introduction) groups the fictional dragon with the simulated dragon and says this group is half-real. To demolish the book you need to say why this term half-real is wrong. The term is wrong if the group is real, entirely not real or the grouping itself is flawed. It has been said that fiction is not real, simulations are real (even if they don't represent something we might bump into) and something can't be partly real. All that leaves I think is that the grouping is incorrect.

Do you know what I'm reading over and over again? People saying I don't get the difference between reality and simulation and not addressing the term used by the book.

[Worm]

I won't be surprised if all these recent posts get deleted, but I'll take a shot anyway:

Yes, the "grouping," as you put it, is "incorrect." But better to say that such a grouping is useless or absurd, because I don't think you understand why this:

a drawing of an apple is real. If I say the drawing is of a fictional character called Clive the apple, Clive is not real. If I group the fictional Clive and the drawing

is muddled language in the extreme.

If you attempt such a grouping, you are proposing either 1) that when someone says "apple" or "soldier" or "dragon" they are also talking about someone else's thoughts about that object, or 2) that someone's thoughts are somehow a component of the object.

In either case you are trying to treat unreal things (thoughts) as if they were real things that should share the object's name. You are not "thinking physics," as icycalm instructed. You are creating a useless set of imagined properties, and by giving it the same name ("apple") you make your words impossible to follow without asking for clarification each time that name is encountered.

"Representation" in the linguistic sense is not something discoverable in an object. There's no actual property of an object that you can look at to determine what the object represents. Representation is a matter of convention, of assumptions between people. (Also note that representation is not equivalent to reference--you seem to be using them interchangeably.)

Even if you try to look at the changes in brain states that result when a particular person looks at a particular instance of a symbol, already you are making statements about the person's brain and not just the object itself. Suggesting that "the apple on the paper" includes these brain states just makes things aggravating for everyone involved and isn't going to lead to any insight or clear analysis.

What we can do is talk about representation in terms of similarities--in terms of reproduction, or in terms of simulation. But this again is "thinking physics" and doesn't require silly terms like "half-real."

Is this your book or something? You seem awfully eager to defend it.

[artfan]

No it's not my book though I can't prove that and don't care if people think otherwise. I'm not defending it just asking for people to clearly state why the term is wrong. Thanks for doing that.

[icycalm]

He is shameless, rude and stupid, so I banned him. And there is no way in hell he understood anything of Worm's post if he failed to understand any of my much simpler explanations.

He has the nerve to say that

people are not addressing the term used by the book.

... a mere handful of posts after I have posted this:

If what is real exists, then what is "half-real" must "half-exist", right? But how can something "half-exist"? It either exists or it doesn't!

Not to mention that even further back I posted this:

The "dragon" or the "wolf" are simply what happens when the game's rules interact with the digital circuitry to which we feed them. What comes out of this interaction is neither "fantastic" nor "unreal" nor "half-" or "quarter-" or "six-sevenths-" real -- it is perfectly real. It's smaller, more harmless, less complex than many other real things, certainly, but that does not in any way render it unreal.

And he has the nerve to come back and say I am not addressing the term used by the book!

But he doesn't stop even there -- he then goes on to imply that my explanations are not "clear":

just asking for people to clearly state why the term is wrong

I have news for you, retard: just because you are failing to understand something does not mean it is unclear. All it means is that you are too stupid to understand it.

[icycalm]

But the 'soldier' doesn't just refer to what is on the screen but also the fictional character we imagine in our heads. Therefore it can't all be real.

The "soldier" refers to what's on the screen. When I say "look at the soldier!", I am telling you to look at the screen, not inside my brain.

Besides, even the fictional (i.e. imagined) soldier exists, as I explained earlier: it exists inside your brain.

I will probably talk about Worm's post in detail later on, because there might be a few things to clear up about it. I need to look at it carefully.


EDIT: Can't find anything wrong with it. It just threw me a little at first because his use of the terminology is a little awkward.

[icycalm]

But the 'soldier' doesn't just refer to what is on the screen but also the fictional character we imagine in our heads. Therefore it can't all be real.

Observe closely this "therefore". It is by their therefores that one can distinguish between lower and higher men in the realm of intellect.

[icycalm]

The dude has been spamming my inbox with even more mental abortions and rudeness. That's the rationale behind banning abortive users: I can at least keep the forum clean -- but they can take reprisals on my inbox.

[icycalm]

We are stepping the game up a little bit:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_simulacrum_is_true/

[EightEyes]

That is a powerful, lucid, magnificent essay.

It has brought a couple of points from Baudrillard into sharper focus for me, and your own conclusion is absolutely tantalising. I can't wait to see where this leads.

[zinger]

Indeed, and that sharper focus was much needed (he's such a confusing guy), so good job and thanks!

[JoshF]

Great article. I agree with EightEyes on the clarity. I think our friend Art "What is a cat? What is a dog?" Fan might even grasp some of these concepts now.

[El Chaos]

Awesome essay icy, as always. Debunking idiots and pondering the concepts they so laughably fail to even start to comprehend with such deepness and clarity and to such extent, all the while being clever and entertaining... man, you're getting me addicted to these, lol. The New York University must be one big joke of an institution, to have such clowns as this guy among their ranks.

Found some typos. The twenty-second paragraph:

(...) one cannot play with a ROM cartidge (...)

And:

This has had as a consequence the absurd overestimation of the importance of the software part (since that's the part that has the game's name stamped on it, lol), to the point where a little retard like Mr. Juul can crawl out of his hole, mount the steps to a covention's auditorium stage, and in all seriousness and solemnity blithely declare the hardware part to be "unreal" without anyone laughing his ass off and getting up and throwing his chair at him (-- a reaction which, let's face it, would have perhaps been reasonable).

Won't abridge this last quote because it cracks me up.

And an omission in the fortieth:

The computer, after all, is by no means ever pretending anything -- the poor thing is merely following its masters' orders (-- indeed to the very letter, and often enough so well as to expose logical flaws in their instructions -- in the form of crashes, bugs, etc.)

[Jsoir]

Great article.

Doesn't it contradict what you said about videogames as simulations though? Emphasis is mine:

...what we must understand is that, in videogames, there are no activities. From the point of view of reality, videogames are about nothing, and nothing actually happens in them. If people want to know what ACTUALLY occurs in videogames, here you go:

In a videogame, nothing is actually occurring apart from the player sitting in front of a screen wiggling around a joystick. And of course a game disc is spinning, electronic signals are passing between the computer and the screen, photons from the screen strike the player's eyes, sound waves emanating from speakers arrive at his ears etc. etc. But nothing depicted ON THE SCREEN is actually happening. No one is walking. No one is shooting. No one is talking. The player is simply, with the help of the machine and a code which is merely a collection of 1s and 0s, tricking his own brain into believing that these things are happening, and that he takes part in them through the wiggling of the joystick or any other type of controller. That is all that's actually happening.

So, to sum up, it is absurd to claim that a new activity can arise out of the world of videogames. Activities are always defined at the level of reality, after all. Tetris is not an activity, distinct from the activity of Contra, for example, or M1 Tank Platoon or Metal Gear Solid. All these videogames (and all videogames ever, in the past or in the future) are about sitting in front of a screen wiggling a joystick around -- they all comprise a SINGLE activity, and this will never change.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2584


As this article points out, when the player wiggles the joystick, and thereby moves the image of Pac-Man in a certain direction, he is engaged in a real activity. Whatever the player decides to do with that image in his head, whatever that image represents to him, is up to him, but the activity is real. Is the activity 'moving the image of Pac-Man upwards' then not a new activity that arises from the world of videogames?

[austere]

Before I respond to Jsoir, I'd just like to say that I think this is the most awesome videogame-related article, ever. Even better than the arcade culture one, which actually revived videogames for me. I thought of many corollaries arising from the definitions icy has forged, such as why the one credit rule works so well -- it pops out immediately. I'm glad this Jesper Juul wrote all that crap, since we got this article as a consequence. We should find some more bad videogame books for Insomnia to destroy, if any have survived this devastating article.

Anyway, here's my attempt at a response, proving that there is no contradiction:

From the point of view of reality, videogames are about nothing, and nothing actually happens in them.

Definition of actually: as an actual or existing fact; really. For example, in Shatterhand, you don't really control a man with bionic arms and punch out villains while your helper floats above you. You're just sitting in front of a computer or console, twitching on the controller and staring at the screen.

Whatever the player decides to do with that image in his head, whatever that image represents to him, is up to him, but the activity is real. Is the activity 'moving the image of Pac-Man upwards' then not a new activity that arises from the world of videogames?

Which would be a new activity (to the player) arising from their own mind, not from the video game. Without the the brain, the activity of thinking* about Pac-Men moving upwards on the screen itself never happens. After all, all that is occurring is a computer is sensing input from a controller and the screen is either sweeping its electron beam, changing the polarisations of its crystals, the ionisation level of its gas plasma discharge, etc. These activities are completely parametrised by the hardware. You could add additional sensory inputs, such a vibrating motor in the controller. Now there is a new activity, arising not from videogames, but the hardware underneath and the most important physical entity of all -- your brain.

* I haven't thought about whether thinking is an activity much, but I was reading this http://tinyurl.com/wittgenact . I don't currently have the clarity of mind or the necessary reading to figure it out.

[ontologist]

Juul’s entire work reproduces only the tiniest fragment of the thesis of Douglas Hofstadter’s book, Gödel, Escher, Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid.

Breadcultist stated the moral of Magritte’s pipe picture, which is noticeably absent from Juul’s index.


[User was banned for posting random unsubstantiated fagotries. --icy]

[icycalm]

Great article.

Doesn't it contradict what you said about videogames as simulations though?

I really hate it when I am praised by people who have clearly not understood what I am saying. What are you even praising? The page layout?

Fuck's sake.

Anyway, austere covered the first part well -- by basically repeating what I had said. So if you did not understand what I said I don't see how you would understand austere's rephrasing of it. But there you have it anyway. If you can't understand it you can't understand it. Too bad. You can always try again in a few months or whatever.

As this article points out, when the player wiggles the joystick, and thereby moves the image of Pac-Man in a certain direction, he is engaged in a real activity. Whatever the player decides to do with that image in his head, whatever that image represents to him, is up to him, but the activity is real. Is the activity 'moving the image of Pac-Man upwards' then not a new activity that arises from the world of videogames?

Dude, what the fuck. Do you even know what an activity is? The way you are defining activity, every time I go play basketball, or every time I ride my motorycle, I am doing a brand-new activity. An activity is -- wait for it! -- AN ABSTRACTION. I mean of course every basketball game is unique and unrepeatable -- but what we mean by "basketball" is any activity which roughly shares a number of common characteristics. The way you are defining activity, every time I move the stick in Pac-Man I am performing a new activity!

Jesus Fucking Christ dude.

The activity is "joystick wiggling". This does not mean that every joystick wiggling session has to be FUCKING IDENTICAL to every other!


P.S. Ignore austere's penultimate paragraph -- it's totally screwed up.

[icycalm]

I'm glad this Jesper Juul wrote all that crap, since we got this article as a consequence.

Now you understand Nietzsche's concept of the dionysian man. The above sentiment is a perfect expression of your dionysian nature. The dionysian man is he who affirms even the bad, the ugly, the terrible in existence, as a necessary precondition for all that is good, beautiful and elevated. "He is affirmative to the point of redeeming even the entire past" -- even little retards like Jesper Juul, lol.

[icycalm]

That is a powerful, lucid, magnificent essay.

I think so too, you know. The power comes from the subject matter and its treatment. This essay delves deeper and further than anything else I've so far published, hence its power. That is why stuff like the arcade or the RPG essay cannot compare. And this is what the pseuds and the artfags fail to grasp. They think that the "writing" is something separate from the subject matter, something that can be separated, so we can admire one or the other independently. And hence they idolize people (like Tim Rogers) who are good "at writing" (read: scribbling) but without really saying anything. And that is why their writings are so weak. A single sentence of Heraclitus, for example, entirely demolishes everything a Tim Rogers has ever written or will ever write. Not because of the form, but because of the content. And it is ONLY BECAUSE OF THIS that we later end up finding the form, too, "beautiful" (read: powerful).

But I will be talking about this at great length very soon.

[Jsoir]

Definition of actually: as an actual or existing fact; really. For example, in Shatterhand, you don't really control a man with bionic arms and punch out villains while your helper floats above you. You're just sitting in front of a computer or console, twitching on the controller and staring at the screen.

Indeed, you control an image of a with man with bionic arms. But it's not what the image depicts that concerns me here, it's the image itself. For the image itself is perfectly real, and the activity of moving it around on your screen is a real activity.

Dude, what the fuck. Do you even know what an activity is? The way you are defining activity, every time I go play basketball, or every time I ride my motorycle, I am doing a brand-new activity. An activity is -- wait for it! -- AN ABSTRACTION. I mean of course every basketball game is unique and unrepeatable -- but what we mean by "basketball" is any activity which roughly shares a number of common characteristics. The way you are defining activity, every time I move the stick in Pac-Man I am performing a new activity!

Jesus Fucking Christ dude.

The activity is "joystick wiggling". This does not mean that every joystick wiggling session has to be FUCKING IDENTICAL to every other!

Alright, but what about the activity "playing Pac-Man"? Surely this activity differs from the activity "playing Shatterhand" enough to speak of a different activity? Certainly, they both involve joystick wiggling, but the differences between them are numerous. Since the images on display are one of the most important aspects of these activities, when these images are very different, the activities themselves are different also, right?

The activities playing tennis and playing badminton share many similarities as well, yet we still speak of different activities. Why not consider playing different videogames different activities as well?

[icycalm]

Why not consider playing different videogames different activities as well?

Why not indeed. And while we are at it, why not also consider every single action we take a different activity? And why not also break down every single action into its constituent movements and also consider each and every one of these another activity as well? And of course we'll also need new names for all these activities! You have found your life's calling, Jsoir! And since it's something that will never be accomplished, even if you work at it for an eternity, you better get started! Forget about this silly little thread -- start cataloguing and naming all these activities!

P.S. If you post again in this thread you will be banned.

[icycalm]

Indeed, you control an image of a with man with bionic arms. But it's not what the image depicts that concerns me here, it's the image itself. For the image itself is perfectly real, and the activity of moving it around on your screen is a real activity.

And once more, YOU ARE NOT MOVING ANY IMAGE YOU FUCKING MORON! YOU ARE MOVING A STICK! How hard can that be to get inside your tiny brain?

[icycalm]

What he is basically saying is this:

"When you buy a t-shirt made in Thailand you are not REALLY buying a t-shirt made in Thailand: what you are really doing is forcing a child to work 12 hours a day inside a sweatshop, lol."

[austere]

The dionysian man is he who affirms even the bad, the ugly, the terrible in existence, as a necessary precondition for all that is good, beautiful and elevated. "He is affirmative to the point of redeeming even the entire past" -- even little retards like Jesper Juul, lol.

I'm going to have to read "Beyond Good and Evil" or "The Birth of Tragedy" next before I can claim to really understand it, but your brief description really helps. My working assumption was that you already had these ideas somewhere (e.g. one of your books), but decided to explicitly destroy his premise by writing the essay. So in this case it wasn't really a necessary precondition, since we would have read something equivalent in your book later. The only benefit was receiving it prematurely due to his flaunting display of retardation. Then again, I might not have gotten to laugh at the hilarious chair comment if it wasn't for someone like Jesper Juul, so I guess I do have a bit of a dionysian nature! :)

If my assumption was correct, then I understand why you said a single page from one of your books was worth more than all the essays on insomnia.ac! Does that statement still stand after the publication of this essay, though?

P.S. Sorry about my failed attempt, I screwed up on the first sentence (flawed definition of activity) and it was a train wreck from there onwards.