I’m confused about the extent to which the four simulacrum levels, as used on LessWrong, necessarily follow from one another in sequential fashion (that would’ve been suggested by their numerical order): is it intended that Level 3⁄4 follow strictly from Level 2⁄3 respectively, or might there be jumps in levels? This is part of a broader question about why the simulacrum levels are numbered in the first place.
An example to illustrate my confusion is the statement “You look great in that outfit!” I conceive of the aforementioned sequential, linear fashion as follows:
Level 1: (Speaker believes) Listener looks great in their outfit.
Level 2: Speaker wants Listener to behave as if (Speaker believes) Listener looks great in their outfit, for consequentialist reasons.
This might be intended as a white lie to please Listener.
Level 3: Speaker wants Listener to believe [Level 2 statement]. I.e., Speaker wants to signal that Speaker is the type of person (on the “team”) that would make the outfit-related statement for consequentialist benefits.
This may be because Speaker wants to signal their social competence in navigating Level 2 scenarios to Listener.
Level 4: Speaker wants Listener to behave as if [Level 3 statement]. I.e., for consequentialist reasons Speaker wants Listener to behave as if Speaker is the type of person to signal as such.
This may be because Speaker wants Listener to know that Speaker knows how to signal.
At this point, the statement has nothing to do with its semantic meaning since it’s used purely as a signal for one’s team signaling, which completes the simulacrum of the statement being completely detached from reality.
However, I can conceive of alternative intentions corresponding to Levels 3⁄4 that’d follow directly as perversions of Level 1 (rather than developing out of Levels 2⁄3 as intermediaries):
Level 3: Speaker wants Listener to believe Speaker is the type of person (on the “team”) that would make the outfit-related statement regarding their beliefs.
This may be because Speaker wants Listener to believe Speaker is nice/socially pleasant.
The key difference between this and the first Level 3 above is that in this case,
Level 4: Speaker barely understands English but wants to induce oxytocin release in Listener, and has cached that someone else saying these words has achieved this desired effect.
Alternatively, Listener is a dog/hamster/pet that has somehow been classically conditioned to behave well when the statement “You look great in that outfit!” is said, maybe because Listener’s owner feeds it better when Listener’s owner is in a good mood upon hearing this statement. Speaker thus says this to Listener to induce Listener to behave.
In either case, the statement has no semantic bearing to reality and is solely used for its consequentialist effects on the world.
I imagine that these models would both be useful in different contexts (especially the second Level 3 formulation), but was confused about why the word “Levels,” which to me implies an intended step-by-step sequencing, is used given that the intermediate levels don’t appear necessary to me; is it purely an artifact of Baudrillard’s original text using “Levels” in this way? For what it’s worth, in my mind my second model seems to correspond more to the 2x2 grid formation in which Levels 2 and 3 are both adjacent to Level 1.
I’m confused about the extent to which the four simulacrum levels, as used on LessWrong, necessarily follow from one another in sequential fashion (that would’ve been suggested by their numerical order): is it intended that Level 3⁄4 follow strictly from Level 2⁄3 respectively, or might there be jumps in levels? This is part of a broader question about why the simulacrum levels are numbered in the first place.
An example to illustrate my confusion is the statement “You look great in that outfit!” I conceive of the aforementioned sequential, linear fashion as follows:
Level 1: (Speaker believes) Listener looks great in their outfit.
Level 2: Speaker wants Listener to behave as if (Speaker believes) Listener looks great in their outfit, for consequentialist reasons.
This might be intended as a white lie to please Listener.
Level 3: Speaker wants Listener to believe [Level 2 statement]. I.e., Speaker wants to signal that Speaker is the type of person (on the “team”) that would make the outfit-related statement for consequentialist benefits.
This may be because Speaker wants to signal their social competence in navigating Level 2 scenarios to Listener.
Level 4: Speaker wants Listener to behave as if [Level 3 statement]. I.e., for consequentialist reasons Speaker wants Listener to behave as if Speaker is the type of person to signal as such.
This may be because Speaker wants Listener to know that Speaker knows how to signal.
At this point, the statement has nothing to do with its semantic meaning since it’s used purely as a signal for one’s team signaling, which completes the simulacrum of the statement being completely detached from reality.
However, I can conceive of alternative intentions corresponding to Levels 3⁄4 that’d follow directly as perversions of Level 1 (rather than developing out of Levels 2⁄3 as intermediaries):
Level 3: Speaker wants Listener to believe Speaker is the type of person (on the “team”) that would make the outfit-related statement regarding their beliefs.
This may be because Speaker wants Listener to believe Speaker is nice/socially pleasant.
The key difference between this and the first Level 3 above is that in this case,
Level 4: Speaker barely understands English but wants to induce oxytocin release in Listener, and has cached that someone else saying these words has achieved this desired effect.
Alternatively, Listener is a dog/hamster/pet that has somehow been classically conditioned to behave well when the statement “You look great in that outfit!” is said, maybe because Listener’s owner feeds it better when Listener’s owner is in a good mood upon hearing this statement. Speaker thus says this to Listener to induce Listener to behave.
In either case, the statement has no semantic bearing to reality and is solely used for its consequentialist effects on the world.
I imagine that these models would both be useful in different contexts (especially the second Level 3 formulation), but was confused about why the word “Levels,” which to me implies an intended step-by-step sequencing, is used given that the intermediate levels don’t appear necessary to me; is it purely an artifact of Baudrillard’s original text using “Levels” in this way? For what it’s worth, in my mind my second model seems to correspond more to the 2x2 grid formation in which Levels 2 and 3 are both adjacent to Level 1.