Add more explanation to Conceptual Manipulation

[Reiner04]

What did DontTalk think that we should do here, in summary?

DontTalk does agrees that Type 3 is vague in its own while Type 1 and 2 is clear. Main purpose of this thread is to clear that vagueness, so issue is still at hand.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, and what is suggested as a solution then?

 

[Deceived3596]

What did DontTalk think that we should do here, in summary?

Anyway, the point I'm making is: I think type 1 and 2 definitions are clear and type 3 is vague on purpose. So I'm not sure what there is to add.

He basically believes we shouldn't do anything since the provided explanations are already good enough, which i don't personally agree with since the explanations do, and have cause confusion in this thread to people who aren't as knowledgeable about concepts, or metaphysics in general.

I proposed the idea of, at the barest minimum, linking the metaphysics wikipedia article, similar to how we do with Idealism and Nominalism. So people can research more about these concepts like "scope", "reality", "universal", "ontology" etc. Just so they have a better grasp on what is explained on our Conceptual Manipulation page.

 

[Antvasima]

What did DontTalk think that we should do here, in summary?

He basically believes we shouldn't do anything since the provided explanations are already good enough, which i don't personally agree with since the explanations do, and have cause confusion in this thread to people who aren't as knowledgeable about concepts, or metaphysics in general.

I proposed the idea of, at the barest minimum, linking the metaphysics wikipedia article, similar to how we do with Idealism and Nominalism. So people can research more about these concepts like "scope", "reality", "universal", "ontology" etc. Just so they have a better grasp on what is explained on our Conceptual Manipulation page.

@DontTalkDT

Would this be acceptable to you?

 

[Fixxed]

Okay, and what is suggested as a solution then?

I think we need more staff opinion about this for the solution

 

[Reiner04]

Okay, and what is suggested as a solution then?

Type 3 concepts are those Concepts that aren't Type 1 or 2, such as personal concepts that are more specific to the object it governs, if more copies are to made they won't fall in the same concept or just specific to single object, that is by default assumption. (As per DT)

I proposed the idea of, at the barest minimum, linking the metaphysics wikipedia article, similar to how we do with Idealism and Nominalism. So people can research more about these concepts like "scope", "reality", "universal", "ontology" etc. Just so they have a better grasp on what is explained on our Conceptual Manipulation page.

I mean, it won't clear any issue, Type 3 Concept don't really exist, and it doesn't have any Definition either rather than if "it's not green then it's yellow", personal concepts aren't elaborated upon, the nature or fundamentals of concept governing single object can be same as concept that are Type 2 or 1 (and even if more copies are made they'll still fall under it), but as for our current Definition, the only proper distinction we have is that concept governing single object is Type 3 and so it "should be" and that's I am saying because it's written and there is nothing else to think, interpretation can just vary one to other person, other wikia, links, books has nothing to say about Type 3 concepts as it don't exist to be linked.

 

[Reiner04]

For instance, a Type 1 concepts, it doesn't care about object it governs due to being entirely independent from it, even if all of its objects don't exist or just single, or never existed at all doesn't mean anything for Type 1 concept, it'll be Type 1 regardless, even if it just governs planet, planet sized realm, city, a human or more, it wouldn't change anything about it, same for Type 2, range or number of objects doesn't matter.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am with DT's opinion, this vagueness is on purpose and has a reason for it. As I said previously, scope and potency has zero relevance in this ability, it is more about functionality and use in verse.

 

[Tatsumi504]

I am with DT's opinion, this vagueness is on purpose and has a reason for it.

This vagueness is the crux of the matter. From the latest major CM fiasco, which you were privy to, this vagueness was exploited even by staff ultimately stating concepts that govern only 1 specific object, even if that object/individual is the reality it participates in, is automatically a personal concept and is thus type 3

As I said previously, scope and potency has zero relevance in this ability, it is more about functionality and use in verse.

Then both this point along with deceived's elaboration needs to be added to the explanation

 

[ImmortalDread]

This vagueness is the crux of the matter. Gtom the latest major CM fiasco, which you were privy to, this vagueness was exploited even by staff ultimately stating concepts that govern only 1 specific object, even if that object/individual is the reality it participates in, is automatically a personal concept and is thus type 3

As I said, the scope of said ability is irrelevant.

 

[Georredannea15]

Well it more simple for say specific reality because it contradict with the statement above that say all of reality

That's what I mean.

 

[Deceived3596]

Bump

 

[Dereck03]

This seems like a limbo and I don't understand what the OP wants to propose.... @DontTalkDT, if you can please clarify one thing for me... A personal concept can be Type 1 or 2 if its entire description fulfills the requirements of the aforementioned concepts?

E.g. we have a concept that is textbook type 1 but because it is a personal concept it is discarded as type 3 directly.

 

[Deceived3596]

A personal concept can't be Type 2/1 since definitionally it doesn't meet the criteria for either tier. It isn't universal in scope, like if you were to duplicate someone who is bounded by a personal concept, that duplicate wouldn't be bounded by said personal concept since it's specifically tied to you and you alone.

But a concept which only currently has one person participating within it can be Type 2/1 since its scope is, in fact, universal, like if you were to duplicate someone who is bounded by that concept, that duplicate would also be bounded by that concept as well since its scope of influence is universal, it affects all in which it defines.

People can get confused on what "personal" and "universal" means on our Conceptual Manipulation page.

A more in-depth explanation between the differences would be that "personal" describes something that's specific to oneself, and oneself alone. No one can have this personalized conception, even if someone duplicated you, that duplication wouldn't have it because it's only you who has it. While "universal" describes something that's encompassing, so even if only one person currently has that property which is defined and govern by that concept, if that person were to be duplicated, that duplicate would also have that specific property, and such concept since the concept is encompassing.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This seems like a limbo and I don't understand what the OP wants to propose.... @DontTalkDT, if you can please clarify one thing for me... A personal concept can be Type 1 or 2 if its entire description fulfills the requirements of the aforementioned concepts?

E.g. we have a concept that is textbook type 1 but because it is a personal concept it is discarded as type 3 directly.

If it's a concept that doesn't govern a set of things (not even a set that currently only contains 1 thing), but that only governs one specific thing, then we would rank it as type 3.

@DontTalkDT

Would this be acceptable to you?

I feel like that isn't a good idea, as what we define as concepts as a specific thing. Linking to that wikipedia article would probably make things worse, as it would make it seem like we consider wikipedia's explanations applicable for our cases, which they in general are not. Wikipedia explores "concepts" (and related things) in a lot of very different and highly complex ways to cover every possible viewpoint and interpretation, which I think makes it a bad addition to the explanation.

 

[Deceived3596]

I feel like that isn't a good idea, as what we define as concepts as a specific thing. Linking to that wikipedia article would probably make things worse, as it would make it seem like we consider wikipedia's explanations applicable for our cases, which they in general are not. Wikipedia explores "concepts" in a lot of very different and highly complex ways, which I think makes it a bad addition to the explanation.

I don't agree with this personally and i have contentions with it, but i'm about to eat supper, so i'll address this argument later.

If it's a concept that doesn't govern a set of things (not even a set that currently only contains 1 thing), but that only governs one specific thing, then we would rank it as type 3.

My explanation is better

 

[Dereck03]

If it's a concept that doesn't govern a set of things (not even a set that currently only contains 1 thing), but that only governs one specific thing, then we would rank it as type 3.

I think I did not explain myself clearly, let's try once more, I mean that e.g., a verse has a concept known as concept of humanity, concept of existence or concept of life, this is not a "universal" concept but rather a "personal" one because each living being possesses the same concept that governs its existence and even if this concept were textbook type 1 (having the elaboration of the story as such), it would still be type 3 because it is discarded as a "personal" concept.

 

[Reiner04]

A personal concept can't be Type 2/1

Oh well, personal concept is our made up term that doesn't have any Definition, so it's upto us how to interpret it, neither type 3 has any proper Definition.

 

[Antvasima]

I feel like that isn't a good idea, as what we define as concepts as a specific thing. Linking to that wikipedia article would probably make things worse, as it would make it seem like we consider wikipedia's explanations applicable for our cases, which they in general are not. Wikipedia explores "concepts" (and related things) in a lot of very different and highly complex ways to cover every possible viewpoint and interpretation, which I think makes it a bad addition to the explanation.

Okay. Never mind then.

So what do you think that we should do here?

 

[Antvasima]

I think I did not explain myself clearly, let's try once more, I mean that e.g., a verse has a concept known as concept of humanity, concept of existence or concept of life, this is not a "universal" concept but rather a "personal" one because each living being possesses the same concept that governs its existence and even if this concept were textbook type 1 (having the elaboration of the story as such), it would still be type 3 because it is discarded as a "personal" concept.

@DontTalkDT