I think there’s something weird about your levels applying to statements or things you say rather than something more like internal attitudes. When you say something as opposed to just thinking it, you kind of by definition do so in order to affect others’ beliefs about what you believe.
I disagree that you by definition do so in order to affect other’s beliefs about what you believe. For example, when I’m reasoning aloud in front of a whiteboard and using someone as a rubber duck, I’m really not doing this to affect them at all. And for a lot of people, a lot of the time, when someone asks them a question, their internal cognition is best described as “thinking about whether P is true” rather than “thinking about the consequences of saying P.” Because they are following a deontological policy of saying what they think in response to questions (at least in that domain).
That said, I agree that maybe it would be better to define everything in terms of internal attitudes. I’ll think about this more & encourage others to do so as well.
That’s been a problem with other writing on the simulacra-levels model as well. It’s unclear whether “operating” at a level means you don’t see and understand the lower levels, or just aren’t focusing your communication on them (because you don’t model your followers/targets as understanding the model).
I think there’s something weird about your levels applying to statements or things you say rather than something more like internal attitudes. When you say something as opposed to just thinking it, you kind of by definition do so in order to affect others’ beliefs about what you believe.
But internal-attitudes aren’t a great fit either.
I disagree that you by definition do so in order to affect other’s beliefs about what you believe. For example, when I’m reasoning aloud in front of a whiteboard and using someone as a rubber duck, I’m really not doing this to affect them at all. And for a lot of people, a lot of the time, when someone asks them a question, their internal cognition is best described as “thinking about whether P is true” rather than “thinking about the consequences of saying P.” Because they are following a deontological policy of saying what they think in response to questions (at least in that domain).
That said, I agree that maybe it would be better to define everything in terms of internal attitudes. I’ll think about this more & encourage others to do so as well.
That’s been a problem with other writing on the simulacra-levels model as well. It’s unclear whether “operating” at a level means you don’t see and understand the lower levels, or just aren’t focusing your communication on them (because you don’t model your followers/targets as understanding the model).