Hyperreality

Can someone help me out with this one? It’s pretty confusing. From what I gather it’s saying that it’s the illusion of being real even though it’s not. Some examples cited are Disneyland, trimmed gardens as nature, fictional characters as role models. It seems to always be used in a derogatory way. But aren’t stories and myths in the same category? Is it really that bad to be inspired by fictional characters?
They call it being unable to tell between fiction and reality. Some even go so far as to say government is under this as well (saying authority is a lie). Or consumerism with certain items signifying wealth and status.
The more I ponder it the more lost I get though.

None of that is bad I guess…there’s a few different levels to your question.
Yes, consumerism is directly connected to wealth and status. That’s why Ford created Lincoln for example.
Disneyland is reality. People have made places and events for recreation for as far back as we can recall.
Trimmed landscapes are nature, in every sense of the word.
Just the same as if you were walking through a field and saw a bed down area for deer, or a birds nest in a tree.
Now in my opinion, the other part, people seeking inspiration from fictional characters is also very natural…
but it can get carried away. Religion is a prime example…
Jesus probably has had a positive influence on many people.
Superman, same thing. The Lone Ranger…
Now, goofballs walking around town thinking they are vampires? Ehhhn…
People escaping into a world of fantasy and taking on roles of fictional characters has it’s limits.(the limits should be liberal of course but there are limits)
At what point does a pathology become apparent? On an individual level? A societal level?
Can a society have a pathology? Hmmn? Technically, probably not.
Can there be symptoms of societal dysfunction as it relates to observed and emerging cultural trends?
Only by measuring it against the reverberations these trends have naturally on society.
On an individual level, the same could be said. Only by measuring it against the reverberations these trends have naturally on society.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
This explains what I’m trying to get at here.

My problem with his claim is that one would need an objective reality in order to compare to fiction and illusion. As it stands we don’t have that. There is simply no way to tell if reality is “real”. Which is why I think terms like Hyperreality are pointless at the end of the day. Even so called “reference points” of reality can’t be proven to be real.

My problem with his claim is that one would need an objective reality in order to compare to fiction and illusion. As it stands we don't have that. There is simply no way to tell if reality is "real". Which is why I think terms like Hyperreality are pointless at the end of the day. Even so called "reference points" of reality can't be proven to be real.
I agree the term hyperreality is redundant. We do have objective waypoints that we use to unify a reality around ourselves. Spiderman and Unicorns are real in the sense that they exist as ideas in our reality. Therefore Spiderman does exist. Why? Because when I mention Spiderman, you know what I'm talking about. Is there an actual man who is cross mutated with a spider due to radiation? No. Can someone exist in our reality "being" Spiderman? Yes. We know he is not cross mutated with a spider. Most likely the person knows this as well. If they don't..then this is mental illness. How much time and resources a society is wiling to engage in liberal cooperation with such mental illness cases is up for discussion. Alot of it depends on how much of a drag that person is on society, themselves and their inter-personal relationships. Reference points of reality can be proven to be real. In so many ways.

How so thought? How can we be sure anything is real? Isnt it true that ultimately we can’t prove whether or not anything is truly real? How can you be sure your “reference points” are real?

How so thought? How can we be sure anything is real? Isnt it true that ultimately we can't prove whether or not anything is truly real? How can you be sure your "reference points" are real?
Would you jump out of a perfectly good airplane without a parachute?
How so thought? How can we be sure anything is real? Isnt it true that ultimately we can't prove whether or not anything is truly real? How can you be sure your "reference points" are real?
Elemental spectroscopy. Would be one way. Separate blind elemental spectroscopy tests done by two groups of people. That gives a pretty solid foundation of a reference point when both tests can duplicate results.

Does it though? How can you be sure what you see is real when human senses are fallible. Then there’s also that scenario about being a brain in a jar.

Does it though? How can you be sure what you see is real when human senses are fallible.
Jump out of a perfectly good airplane without a parachute.
Then there's also that scenario about being a brain in a jar.
If you're going to accept things without evidence then you're free too believe any silly thing you want.
Does it though? How can you be sure what you see is real when human senses are fallible. Then there's also that scenario about being a brain in a jar.
You'll have to start the brain/jar scenario. Start the thought experiment... Human senses are not fallible in that sense either. Sure eyes fail eventually, ears get worse over time... But human senses are not fallible. They are just tuned to a narrow band of frequencies which we have evolved to for maximum efficiency. All things considered. Seeing infra red would be beneficial to us(we make machines to do it) but it didn't happen. That's not fallibility. That's just expediency. That's just the way things unfolded. But please, go ahead and start the brain/jar exploration. Take it away. Get it started. I don't have a reference point or a "beginning" for it. I will say this, I think the concept is tainted right from the starting gate... in the context of brain/jar....what's a "brain"? what's a "jar"? what does" in a" mean?

I had some friends over for dinner this weekend. They told us of a conversation they just had with their mid twenties daughter who is going to school and just learned that all of life is a construction. I’m not sure if they were reading “The Social Construction of Reality” or what. She was having trouble grasping it and wondering why no one told her this before.
I fell her pain, but the best answer I can give is, we tried. We try to teach our kids how the world actually works, but we fail, because we aren’t Baron Von Munchausen, we can’t pull up on our pony tails and lift ourselves out of the muck. It’s hard to tell someone who is just realizing it, that until now, they weren’t capable of understanding what they are now grappling with. And, although we have tried to give them answers all their life, they are now entering the REAL “real world”, where people can’t give you answers for everything. This sounds terrible, but it also means you can now begin to understand poetry, you can understand why we write poems about love instead of being happy with the dictionary definition.

I had some friends over for dinner this weekend. They told us of a conversation they just had with their mid twenties daughter who is going to school and just learned that all of life is a construction. I'm not sure if they were reading "The Social Construction of Reality" or what. She was having trouble grasping it and wondering why no one told her this before. I fell her pain, but the best answer I can give is, we tried. We try to teach our kids how the world actually works, but we fail, because we aren't Baron Von Munchausen, we can't pull up on our pony tails and lift ourselves out of the muck. It's hard to tell someone who is just realizing it, that until now, they weren't capable of understanding what they are now grappling with. And, although we have tried to give them answers all their life, they are now entering the REAL "real world", where people can't give you answers for everything. This sounds terrible, but it also means you can now begin to understand poetry, you can understand why we write poems about love instead of being happy with the dictionary definition.
Excellent post, Lausten. Puts things in perspective much more politely than saying, "Strap on a pair and deal with it." Contrary to what Vyazma posted, human senses are fallible. We misinterpret sensory input quite often, and even do not see something that is there. Look up the gorilla/basketball video on youtube. About half the people watching it for the first time do not see the roller skating gorilla weaving its way through the basketball players. Anyone who has ridden a motorcycle knows you have to believe you are invisible to survive in traffic. In addition, our senses are quite limited. That is why we have scientific instruments to measure things we cannot detect using our senses. Even then, the best we can reach is a close approximation to reality. Close enough to survive and reproduce, obviously, but also close enough to land spacecrafts on Mars, probe the outer solar system, and determine how the universe has evolved since 10E-43 seconds after the Big Bang. We know quite a bit about what happens on the quantum scale, but the deeper we probe the more surrealistic things get, which is ironic because Quantum Field Theory is probably the most successful theory in science. Don't worry about the New Age crap people try to sell. Science works, and the things we haven't figured out are the fun parts.
Contrary to what Vyazma posted, human senses are fallible. We misinterpret sensory input quite often, and even do not see something that is there. Look up the gorilla/basketball video on youtube. About half the people watching it for the first time do not see the roller skating gorilla weaving its way through the basketball players. Anyone who has ridden a motorcycle knows you have to believe you are invisible to survive in traffic.
Misinterpretation of sensory input does not imply sensory fallibility. In the case of that novelty video with the Gorilla, did the person successfully count the number of people? Or whatever they were instructed to do?(saw that one a long time ago.) Yes most people can do that. That's not even misdirection. That's being told to count some people. Which is easy to do with our senses. And then afterwards, "Oh, by the way there was a gorilla sneaking through there." That shows how our senses operate. Our eyes are task specific most of the time, especially when focusing on a given task. Because someone is looking at a painting of house which is in the foreground and they miss the little boat out at sea in the background does not imply fallibility. On top of that "fallibility" is a novelty word anyways. Our senses do exactly what they are designed to do. Unless they are broken, like nearsightedness, tinnitus, colorblindness(like me) etc etc. Making tests like the gorilla on roller skates or optical illusions does not show fallibility, it further explains the operation of our sensory input and interpretation. That's like saying our arms are fallible because we can't scratch every part of our backs. Or our necks are fallible because we can't turn our heads 180 degrees. Sensory "fallibilty" is just a meme to launch philosophical expositions with.

What about people not seeing motorcycles because they are looking for cars?
Our senses are combinations of input and interpretation. You cannot separate what our organs detect from what our brains interpret as they are wired together.

What about people not seeing motorcycles because they are looking for cars? Our senses are combinations of input and interpretation. You cannot separate what our organs detect from what our brains interpret as they are wired together.
I'm not trying to separate them. Limitations also do not imply fallibility. Processing limitations, distractions, camouflage, daydreaming, etc etc.. The sensory system we have, is as good as it can be. Because we can postulate how it could be better, certainly doesn't show fallibility. I hate to even keep using that word. Obviously in light of evolution the word "fallible" is inapplicable. If you have a computer and it is running properly but we say, "I wish this could run better, if I put these chips in it, it would run better..." That doesn't mean the computer is fallible, or faulty, or not designed good. It is doing exactly what it was built to do.

OK. Missing something when you’re not looking for it is not a sign of fallibility. Don’t ever ride a motorcycle.

OK. Missing something when you're not looking for it is not a sign of fallibility. Don't ever ride a motorcycle.
I usually throw down 6-7 thousand miles a year. That's a 5 month "year" on account of Winter.