Conceptual Manipulation type 1 vs Conceptual Manipulation type 2

[DavidTPPM]

(sorry if this was already asked, I couldn't find a thread talking about it which wasn't 10 years old)
I'm a bit confused about the difference between type 2 and type 1 concepts. I understand that at its core the main difference is that one can be changed by altering all of the objects it governs while the other can't, but I don't understand why would that require a different type of CM and CM resistance.

For type 3 and 2 it makes sense. Manipulating the type 2 concept of "humanity" is logically far superior to simply manipulating the type 3 concept of an individual human like me or you. And logically just because I can resist the manipulation of "me" doesn't protect me from someone manipulating the concept of "humanity" and as a side effect affecting me as well, as the concept of "me" is a part of humanity.

But what real practical difference is there between 1 and 2? If I can resist the manipulation of a type 2 "humanity" why would it not protect me from a type 1 manipulation of "humanity" when the only difference is that the latter can't be changed by manipulating humans? It seems like unless I'm missing something, the only difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 is a bit more difficult to destroy but that has no reason to affect how difficult it is to manipulate or resist

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

I agree that there's not much difference in the "make-up" of the concept that would require a higher form of interaction since they're both just the same governing property if it's not a 1-A type 1 concept.

 

[Johner2133451]

I think @Dark_Soul20189 have a good answer for this

Does resisting Conceptual manip type 1 allows you to resist layered CM type 2/3?

Also does type 1 allows to bypass anyone who resists type 2/3 no matter the layers?

vsbattles.com

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

I think @Dark_Soul20189 have a good answer for this

Does resisting Conceptual manip type 1 allows you to resist layered CM type 2/3?

Also does type 1 allows to bypass anyone who resists type 2/3 no matter the layers?

vsbattles.com

i dont really agree with that assessment IMO. nothing about type 1 makes it more fundamental or larger, it's just typically a vague notion of independence of their particular.

 

[DavidTPPM]

I think @Dark_Soul20189 have a good answer for this

Does resisting Conceptual manip type 1 allows you to resist layered CM type 2/3?

Also does type 1 allows to bypass anyone who resists type 2/3 no matter the layers?

vsbattles.com

Simply saying it's "much more fundamental and bigger" doesn't really explain much. Why would it be "more fundamental" or "bigger" and why would it interact with cm2 stuff differently

 

[Johner2133451]

Simply saying it's "much more fundamental and bigger" doesn't really explain much. Why would it be "more fundamental" or "bigger" and why would it interact with cm2 stuff differently

Well you can ask him yourself

 

[DavidTPPM]

Well you can ask him yourself

That's what this thread is for

 

[First_Witch]

To understand the difference between Type 1 and 2 it may help to explain the history of VSB's Concept manip page.

Back in the days, the concept page was divided into philosophies rather than general definitions, with current Type 1 being akin to platonic concepts while current type 2 and Type 3 being aristotelic concepts, just divided into universal and personal concepts. That was changed with the massive tiering revision flipping the whole wiki over its head in tthis thread. The tl;dr is that binding concept manip to specific philosophers is dumb and narrow and that many other philosophers had similar definitions, as such it was decided that the concept manip page should be definition based, rather than philosopher based.

Even though that revision was objectivly good and important, I still think platonism and aristotelianism is a apt baseline definition to view the current concept manip page with.

So Type 1 Concept exist outside of reality, while Type 2 do not. For you to mess with a Type 1, your powers would have to be able to move past the confines of reality to reach them. There exist a inherent superiority in relation to reality, while type 2 exist within reality and as such does not posses an inherent superiority, just abstractness which type 1 obviously also possess in lieu of being, well, concepts. Said superiority is not well defined and will never be again, because every fictional universe is different, but it exist inherently in the definition of the type. Never again, because it would lead to some really funky shit, like way back then we used to have a concept type that was exclusive to the old 1-A's solely based on the fact that platonism could qualify for it and did some real mental gymnastic to prevent platonism to make everyone at the bare minimum smurfs with 1-A concept hax.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

To understand the difference between Type 1 and 2 it may help to explain the history of VSB's Concept manip page.

Back in the days, the concept page was divided into philosophies rather than general definitions, with current Type 1 being akin to platonic concepts while current type 2 and Type 3 being aristotelic concepts, just divided into universal and personal concepts. That was changed with the massive tiering revision flipping the whole wiki over its head in tthis thread. The tl;dr is that binding concept manip to specific philosophers is dumb and narrow and that many other philosophers had similar definitions, as such it was decided that the concept manip page should be definition based, rather than philosopher based.

Even though that revision was objectivly good and important, I still think platonism and aristotelianism is a apt baseline definition to view the current concept manip page with.

So Type 1 Concept exist outside of reality, while Type 2 do not. For you to mess with a Type 1, your powers would have to be able to move past the confines of reality to reach them. There exist a inherent superiority in relation to reality, while type 2 exist within reality and as such does not posses an inherent superiority, just abstractness which type 1 obviously also possess in lieu of being, well, concepts. Said superiority is not well defined and will never be again, because every fictional universe is different, but it exist inherently in the definition of the type. Never again, because it would lead to some really funky shit, like way back then we used to have a concept type that was exclusive to the old 1-A's solely based on the fact that platonism could qualify for it and did some real mental gymnastic to prevent platonism to make everyone at the bare minimum smurfs with 1-A concept hax.

if type 1 was inherently superior over like space and time then it'd inherently be 1-A. Sure type 1 might be inherently aspatial and atemporal but that goes for all concepts. Them being "outside" reality just refers to them not depending on the reality or existence of the object they govern not that they just exist outside and are qualitatively superior (which is only way for them to be inherently superior when it comes to abstract non-composite shit) to reality as a whole.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

if type 1 was inherently superior over like space and time then it'd inherently be 1-A. Sure type 1 might be inherently aspatial and atemporal but that goes for all concepts. Them being "outside" reality just refers to them not depending on the reality or existence of the object they govern not that they just exist outside and are qualitatively superior (which is only way for them to be inherently superior when it comes to abstract non-composite shit) to reality as a whole.

I don't think inherent superiority over reality is tenable for all type 1 concepts (especially how VSBW currently treats it) considering that naturally leads to 1-A and a lot of type 1 concepts only get it because they simply exist with or without their object without much proof of any transcendence and only stuff like vague notions of independence

 

[First_Witch]

if type 1 was inherently superior over like space and time then it'd inherently be 1-A. Sure type 1 might be inherently aspatial and atemporal but that goes for all concepts. Them being "outside" reality just refers to them not depending on the reality or existence of the object they govern not that they just exist outside and are qualitatively superior (which is only way for them to be inherently superior when it comes to abstract non-composite shit) to reality as a whole.

Like I said, a clearly defined level of superioty does not exist anymore as it exactly lead to that issue back in the days, with past type 1 being literally only archievable with a 1-A cosmology. At the bare minimum you can argue that it is "harder" to reach something that exist outside your confines of reality or that being bound by reality in a meaningful way lowers the abstractness of type 2.

That was the beginning of my rebuttal, but then I realized something that explains the disconnect here. The current defintion of concept manipulation was born in conjunction with the past tiering revision. Reality Fiction back then was equal to a singular, for tiering sufficently superior, higher dimension for example. The current concept page might not hold up to the current tiering system anymore.

 

[DavidTPPM]

To understand the difference between Type 1 and 2 it may help to explain the history of VSB's Concept manip page.

Back in the days, the concept page was divided into philosophies rather than general definitions, with current Type 1 being akin to platonic concepts while current type 2 and Type 3 being aristotelic concepts, just divided into universal and personal concepts. That was changed with the massive tiering revision flipping the whole wiki over its head in tthis thread. The tl;dr is that binding concept manip to specific philosophers is dumb and narrow and that many other philosophers had similar definitions, as such it was decided that the concept manip page should be definition based, rather than philosopher based.

Even though that revision was objectivly good and important, I still think platonism and aristotelianism is a apt baseline definition to view the current concept manip page with.

So Type 1 Concept exist outside of reality, while Type 2 do not. For you to mess with a Type 1, your powers would have to be able to move past the confines of reality to reach them. There exist a inherent superiority in relation to reality, while type 2 exist within reality and as such does not posses an inherent superiority, just abstractness which type 1 obviously also possess in lieu of being, well, concepts. Said superiority is not well defined and will never be again, because every fictional universe is different, but it exist inherently in the definition of the type. Never again, because it would lead to some really funky shit, like way back then we used to have a concept type that was exclusive to the old 1-A's solely based on the fact that platonism could qualify for it and did some real mental gymnastic to prevent platonism to make everyone at the bare minimum smurfs with 1-A concept hax.

Soooo basically type 1s have some sort of superiority to reality itself due to existing outside of it, and that's why resistance to reality-bound concepts can't protect you from them

 

[First_Witch]

Soooo basically type 1s have some sort of superiority to reality itself due to existing outside of it, and that's why resistance to reality-bound concepts can't protect you from them

More or less. That is, if the current concept page remains in its form even after a tiering system revision that completly nuked the tiering revision system preceding it, that literally lead to the birth of the current concept page, happened.

 

[Deonment]

I don't think inherent superiority over reality is tenable for all type 1 concepts (especially how VSBW currently treats it) considering that naturally leads to 1-A and a lot of type 1 concepts only get it because they simply exist with or without their object without much proof of any transcendence and only stuff like vague notions of independence

I mean yeah, that's how it used to be back when we had four types of concepts (well a bit before, we changed the standards on them before we did the type 1 and 2 merger), type 1 was for true platonic concepts and were either 1-A or for characters that were 1-A, type 2 was false platonic and basically our current type 1 since we merged it and the old type 1 into one concept manip type
Do I agree that the old type 1 absolutely bypasses the lower types?
Yes, absolutely, its very much proven to be transcendental in a way that actually shows a difference in "fundamentality" compared to the lower concepts
The same does not generally apply to our current type 1 concept, whose standards have been lightened compared to type 1 (and hell even old type 2), where you mainly just need to show a level of independence to your particulars + being type 2 and nothing more. Our current standard still grants them the full type 1 treatment (which I disagree with mind you) however.
This is why I feel more and more I should try and pull the deletion of concept types and force people to actually argue the nature of their concepts in comparison to each other

 

[FinePoint]

Snip.

Conceptually (heh) they're very similar.

The key difference is that a Type 1 concept is independent from what it dictates, while a Type 2 concept is dependent on what it dictates.

It's sort of like the whole: "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" Let's assume the concept is the chicken, and whatever it's talking about are its eggs.

In the case of a Type 1 concept, the chicken clearly came first and lays the eggs. If its eggs were smashed, it wouldn't harm the chicken, but killing the chicken would make it unable to lay eggs (and in this case breaks all the existing eggs too).

For Type 2, imagine that the chicken and the egg are essentially the same thing, that the idea of the 'chicken' only exists as an explanation to the 'eggs'. If you break all the eggs, there's no longer a need for a chicken to exist to explain them, and so it goes away with them.

So, in essence, Type 2 concepts are dependent on what they dictate. They're linked fundamentally, and affecting one always affects the other.
A Type 1 concept is independent from what it dictates; altering what it describes does nothing to the concept itself.

In a practical sense, this makes Type 1 concepts unreachable by anything in the reality they dictate just by virtue of being separate from it, while a Type 2 concept exists as part of the reality it dictates, and can therefore be easily affected by changes in that reality itself. Therefore, affecting a Type 1 concept is fundamentally far more impressive.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Conceptually (heh) they're very similar.

The key difference is that a Type 1 concept is independent from what it dictates, while a Type 2 concept is dependent on what it dictates.

It's sort of like the whole: "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" Let's assume the concept is the chicken, and whatever it's talking about are its eggs.

In the case of a Type 1 concept, the chicken clearly came first and lays the eggs. If its eggs were smashed, it wouldn't harm the chicken, but killing the chicken would make it unable to lay eggs (and in this case breaks all the existing eggs too).

For Type 2, imagine that the chicken and the egg are essentially the same thing, that the idea of the 'chicken' only exists as an explanation to the 'eggs'. If you break all the eggs, there's no longer a need for a chicken to exist to explain them, and so it goes away with them.

So, in essence, Type 2 concepts are dependent on what they dictate. They're linked fundamentally, and affecting one always affects the other.
A Type 1 concept is independent from what it dictates; altering what it describes does nothing to the concept itself.

In a practical sense, this makes Type 1 concepts unreachable by anything in the reality they dictate just by virtue of being separate from it, while a Type 2 concept exists as part of the reality it dictates, and can therefore be easily affected by changes in that reality itself. Therefore, affecting a Type 1 concept is fundamentally far more impressive.

But as watered down concept requirements are on this wiki and how insubstantial the difference currently is there shouldn't be any difference of interactibility. The independence doesn't change that it's literally just the same governing property with some self sustenance without difference in it's makeup.

 

[SweetDao]

But as watered down concept requirements are on this wiki and how insubstantial the difference currently is there shouldn't be any different of interactibility. The independence doesn't change that it's literally just the same governing property with some self sustenance without difference in it's makeup.

Me when my opponent use CM1 Death Manip against my CM2 Death Manip (literally the same potency and the same effect)

 

[FinePoint]

But as watered down concept requirements are on this wiki and how insubstantial the difference currently is there shouldn't be any difference of interactibility. The independence doesn't change that it's literally just the same governing property with some self sustenance without difference in it's makeup.

Well the implication is that the Type 1 concept exists separately from reality, and therefore doesn't itself exist inside of it, therefore requiring reach beyond reality to affect it, whereas a Type 2 concept could theoretically be manipulated from just inside reality.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Well the implication is that the Type 1 concept exists separately from reality, and therefore doesn't itself exist inside of it, therefore requiring reach beyond reality to affect it, whereas a Type 2 concept could theoretically be manipulated from just inside reality.

Reality is kinda an ill defined thing here. "Reality" for these purposes typically refers to the existence of what it governs and not like a location or realm since concepts are typically without location since they're y'know abstract, aspatial, whatever. They don't exist outside reality in a sense they exist outside a realm in another location.

 

[FinePoint]

Reality is kinda an ill defined thing here. "Reality" for these purposes typically refers to the existence of what it governs and not like a location or realm since concepts are typically without location since they're y'know abstract, aspatial, whatever. They don't exist outside reality in a sense they exist outside a realm in another location.

Well, if we're talking about a specific concept like that, then a Type 1 concept becomes even more unreachable just by the virtue that most things can't interact with abstracts like that at all. Meanwhile, a Type 2 concept could be affected by anything on the same level as what it governs.

 

[Deonment]

Well, if we're talking about a specific concept like that, then a Type 1 concept becomes even more unreachable just by the virtue that most things can't interact with abstracts like that at all. Meanwhile, a Type 2 concept could be affected by anything on the same level as what it governs.

What?
No, that's just not true, and that doesn't create the difference in fundamentality that makes type 1 concepts currently overpower type 2 and 3 concepts, yeah sure you can "affect" a type 2 concept by altering all instances of it across whatever scope it governs, but being "unreachable" doesn't make them more fundamental and neither would it (in theory) stop someone with NPI on concepts from messing with one as easily as they could a type 2 concept

 

[FinePoint]

What?
No, that's just not true, and that doesn't create the difference in fundamentality that makes type 1 concepts currently overpower type 2 and 3 concepts, yeah sure you can "affect" a type 2 concept by altering all instances of it across whatever scope it governs, but being "unreachable" doesn't make them more fundamental and neither would it (in theory) stop someone with NPI on concepts from messing with one as easily as they could a type 2 concept

I never said they were more fundamental.

 

[Exoko]

if type 1 was inherently superior over like space and time then it'd inherently be 1-A. Sure type 1 might be inherently aspatial and atemporal but that goes for all concepts. Them being "outside" reality just refers to them not depending on the reality or existence of the object they govern not that they just exist outside and are qualitatively superior (which is only way for them to be inherently superior when it comes to abstract non-composite shit) to reality as a whole.

What if the area it inhabits seems to depend on the reality but not the existence of the object they govern?

 

[Deonment]

What if the area it inhabits seems to depend on the reality but not the existence of the object they govern?

Well, a concept doesn't really reside "within" an area or what have you, but anyways, assuming that it does, it wouldn't really stop it from being type 1, a concept only care about and underlines its particulars, and is the only medium through which said concept can "impact" reality. So if somehow a concept is independent of its particulars, yet dependent upon reality (whether through like, reality being the existential ground of being for those concepts or what have you), then it would still be type 1