Conceptual Manipulation Clarifications/Revisions

[Orange]

Yes but as discussed above you can still have concept manip over a limited range, it just has to effect targets equally over the same range. So it’d have less to do with type and more to do with scope.

Well, actually that sounds more logical.
I have the urge to create an information manipulation thread and give it multiple types, but I don't know if its needed

 

[Antvasima]

I saw the power of "Conceptual Data Manipulation" and sounds like it fits the bill.

Is this from the Superpower wiki, or do we have it written somewhere ourselves? Also, wouldn't @DontTalkDT's suggestion of a new "Property Manipulation" page work better for our purposes?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Is this from the Superpower wiki, or do we have it written somewhere ourselves? Also, wouldn't @DontTalkDT's suggestion of a new "Property Manipulation" page work better for our purposes?

Yeah I didn’t want to directly link the page since i didn’t know if there were wiki rules against it. We do not currently have a page for it.

I think a properties page would run into issues me and Yuri discussed above, in that it would just be naming something that would inherently just lead back to concepts and information.

Conceptual data manipulation would allow us to index crossover between info and concepts (or essences/properties). We could also do as suggested by myself and other users, and expand upon the information manipulation page to allow for types, and add a type for conceptual/abstract information manipulation to be accounted for.

So currently awaiting more staff input on that but most people here seem to be in general agreement from what I can tell.

 

[Antvasima]

Yeah I didn’t want to directly link the page since i didn’t know if there were wiki rules against it. We do not currently have a page for it.

I think a properties page would run into issues me and Yuri discussed above, in that it would just be naming something that would inherently just lead back to concepts and information.

Conceptual data manipulation would allow us to index crossover between info and concepts (or essences/properties). We could also do as suggested by myself and other users, and expand upon the information manipulation page to allow for types, and add a type for conceptual/abstract information manipulation to be accounted for.

So currently awaiting more staff input on that but most people here seem to be in general agreement from what I can tell.

Okay. Understood.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Agnaa @KingPin0422 @QuasiYuri

What do you think about this?

 

[Orange]

Well as I said, I can create a thread [staff?] To write down how we should treat informal manipulation and give it more type [including conceptual information]. If that's alright with everyone ofcourse

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Well as I said, I can create a thread [staff?] To write down how we should treat informal manipulation and give it more type [including conceptual information]. If that's alright with everyone ofcourse

I don't see why we would need to make another thread tbh. Most of the staff is here, so I'd suggest laying out your proposed stuff here for them to discuss in addition to their own thoughts.

 

[Orange]

I don't see why we would need to make another thread tbh. Most of the staff is here, so I'd suggest laying out your proposed stuff here for them to discuss in addition to their own thoughts.

Sweet, it I'll take me an hour or so, brace yourselves.

 

[Orange]

INFORMATION MANIPULATION: is the power to control, alter, and even destroy information itself, an incredibly useful ability given that information exists throughout everything in some form or another. On a small scale, this can allow for the analysis of information, manipulating data, and potentially even directly drawing information from sources and absorbing it to use for one's self. On a more complex and powerful scale, users of this ability can manipulate the fundamental information of the universe to warp reality, its laws, and potentially even its concepts, with ease.
TYPES OF INFORMATION MANIPULATION:

DATA INFORMATION:

The ability to manipulate or destroy or create data based information, such information has to do with technology, data, hardwares etc...

PHYSICS INFORMATION:

The ability to manipulate, destroy or create pphysic based information, which goes hand to hand with physic/mathematics information. Examples: manipulation the information about how the atomic structure of an object work or manipulating the information about how fast is the speed of light. Going even further, you can also manipulate matter themselves [such as atoms and cells] which should allow you to manipulate the information of the genetic coding if everyone and everything that consists of Cells and DNA.

CONCEPTUAL INFORMATION:

the ability to manipulate information on a conceptual level, or manipulating the information about concepts, and abstract in general, such as mathematics, concepts [like death, Fate etc....] Which also includes changes the property and nature of objects or concepts.

MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL INFORMATION:

The abability manipulate the information of spiritual and mental planes, which should include the ability to manipulate informations about souls, spirits, ghosts, minds, emotions and etc..

is this enough? Please give me more input

 

[Dr._whiteee]

INFORMATION MANIPULATION: is the power to control, alter, and even destroy information itself, an incredibly useful ability given that information exists throughout everything in some form or another. On a small scale, this can allow for the analysis of information, manipulating data, and potentially even directly drawing information from sources and absorbing it to use for one's self. On a more complex and powerful scale, users of this ability can manipulate the fundamental information of the universe to warp reality, its laws, and potentially even its concepts, with ease.
TYPES OF INFORMATION MANIPULATION:

DATA INFORMATION:

The ability to manipulate or destroy or create data based information, such information has to do with technology, data, hardwares etc...

PHYSICS INFORMATION:

The ability to manipulate, destroy or create pphysic based information, which goes hand to hand with physic/mathematics information. Examples: manipulation the information about how the atomic structure of an object work or manipulating the information about how fast is the speed of light.

BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION:

As the name suggests, the ability to manipulate information at a genetic and cellular level, such as manipulation Of the genetic information to change the build of an apple.

CONCEPTUAL INFORMATION:

the ability to manipulate information on a conceptual level, or manipulating the information about concepts, such as changing the information about a certain concept etc...



is this enough? Please give me more input

Well bio manipulation would just be a subset of physics information since the biggest difference between atoms/molecules and cells is the complexity of the components and their relationships. Mathematics would also fall under the category of abstractions and would thus be more conceptual in nature. So I'd remove the stuff about mathematics from physics information and add the biological stuff to the front end of it. Place the mathematics stuff in the concepts in addition to the following:

The definition for concept info manip should include effecting abstracts in general, as well as changing the essence of a thing's quality beyond just being a general subset ie., changing matter to spirit, spirit to matter, etc.

May also need to add a spiritual/mental information aspect to account for energy systems dependant on those things.

 

[Orange]

Did it

 

[KingPin0422]

The issue I have is that a "concept" is by default nothing more than a thought, an idea, and so I feel that defining a power based on a high-level interpretation of what a concept is to be faulty. Concepts as we consider them are strictly universals, which are characteristics or qualities which can be exemplified by multiple particular things. The three categories of universals include types (e.g. humanity), properties (e.g. greenness), and relations (e.g. fatherhood). Of universals, four major stances can be taken:

• Platonic/Extreme realism: Universals exist in an ideal form independently of any mind or thing.
• Aristotelian/Moderate realism: Universals are abstracted from the mind by particular things.
• Idealism: Universals are constructed in the mind and thus exist only in descriptions of things.
• Nominalism: Universals do not exist.

Of these, idealism and nominalism are specified as not meeting our requirements for Conceptual Manipulation. Realism is, of course, the only way that universals can qualify as concepts. The thing is, "lesser realism" appears to be a fabrication on our end. Extreme realism and moderate realism correspond to Platonism (type 1) and Aristotelianism (type 2) respectively, but lesser realism has no analogue in philosophy that I can find. In fact, the reason idealism and nominalism do not qualify is that they have no bearing on physical reality, albeit according to Tago, "lesser realist" concepts qualify despite having this same stipulation. The distinction between the non-qualification of idealism/nominalism and the qualification of lesser realism is based on abstractness, but according to Wikipedia, the definition of an "abstract object" is nebulous and not universally agreed upon:

There is no general consensus as to what the characteristic marks of concreteness and abstractness are. Popular suggestions include defining the distinction in terms of the difference between (1) existence inside or outside space-time, (2) having causes and effects or not, (3) having contingent or necessary existence, (4) being particular or universal and (5) belonging to either the physical or the mental realm or to neither. Despite this diversity of views, there is broad agreement concerning most objects as to whether they are abstract or concrete.

For the sake of accuracy, I would like to propose renaming "Conceptual Manipulation" to something else in order to avoid confusion. To what exactly, I don't know. Property Manipulation, Essence Manipulation, Universal Manipulation, whatever works for the community. Either way, I feel that type 3 should be reclassified as something else (Subjective Reality, perhaps?). As for splitting the power based on "affecting universals themselves" vs "affecting universals as they apply to a particular object", at a glance, it seems like an issue of scope rather than a categorical error, so I lean towards disagreement on that front.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

The issue I have is that a "concept" is by default nothing more than a thought, an idea, and so I feel that defining a power based on a high-level interpretation of what a concept is to be faulty. Concepts as we consider them are strictly universals, which are characteristics or qualities which can be exemplified by multiple particular things. The three categories of universals include types (e.g. humanity), properties (e.g. greenness), and relations (e.g. fatherhood). Of universals, four major stances can be taken:

• Platonic/Extreme realism: Universals exist in an ideal form independently of any mind or thing.
• Aristotelian/Moderate realism: Universals are abstracted from the mind by particular things.
• Idealism: Universals are constructed in the mind and thus exist only in descriptions of things.
• Nominalism: Universals do not exist.

Of these, idealism and nominalism are specified as not meeting our requirements for Conceptual Manipulation. Realism is, of course, the only way that universals can qualify as concepts. The thing is, "lesser realism" appears to be a fabrication on our end. Extreme realism and moderate realism correspond to Platonism (type 1) and Aristotelianism (type 2) respectively, but lesser realism has no analogue in philosophy that I can find. In fact, the reason idealism and nominalism do not qualify is that they have no bearing on physical reality, albeit according to Tago, "lesser realist" concepts qualify despite having this same stipulation. The distinction between the non-qualification of idealism/nominalism and the qualification of lesser realism is based on abstractness, but according to Wikipedia, the definition of an "abstract object" is nebulous and not universally agreed upon:

Yeah, I agree with a lot of this and this kind of puts into words the cognitive dissonance I was experiencing. If concept manip is going to stay related to the Platonic and Aristotelian descriptions, than I don't have a problem so long as the following is addressed/implemented:

For the sake of accuracy, I would like to propose renaming "Conceptual Manipulation" to something else in order to avoid confusion. To what exactly, I don't know. Property Manipulation, Essence Manipulation, Universal Manipulation, whatever works for the community. Either way, I feel that type 3 should be reclassified as something else (Subjective Reality, perhaps?).

To stem off of your first point, I think the problem was the varying definitions for "concepts". For example, word magic is kind of inherently conceptual and it is utilizing language to conceptualize and communicate certain things and then bring that into reality. So to me, it would count as "conceptual" as it relates to the general definition, even if not necessarily to Platonic and Aristotelian definitions. Subjective reality seems to fit nicely because it would catalog all of those conceptions of a concept that wouldn't apply to types 1 & 2.

Although I still think the crossover between Concept (or whatever we decide to name it) and Information manipulation should also be expounded upon.

As for splitting the power based on "affecting universals themselves" vs "affecting universals as they apply to a particular object", at a glance, it seems like an issue of scope rather than a categorical error, so I lean towards disagreement on that front.

I think this is the other major reason for a lot of the confusion. I've encountered many arguments that say the scope must affect all things in order to qualify (what one would say expect from changing a platonic form itself) any sort of "manipulation" to be granted and was confused about that.

 

[KingPin0422]

To stem off of your first point, I think the problem was the varying definitions for "concepts". For example, word magic is kind of inherently conceptual and it is utilizing language to conceptualize and communicate certain things and then bring that into reality. So to me, it would count as "conceptual" as it relates to the general definition, even if not necessarily to Platonic and Aristotelian definitions. Subjective reality seems to fit nicely because it would catalog all of those conceptions of a concept that wouldn't apply to types 1 & 2.

Indeed. Hell, DontTalk himself even acknowledged that what is treated as Conceptual Manipulation in-universe may not qualify as such for our purposes, and vice versa. It's like if we stopped counting type 1 Immortality as "true" immortality and only counted forms of immortality that protect the user from unnatural causes of death.

Although I still think the crossover between Concept (or whatever we decide to name it) and Information manipulation should also be expounded upon.

Right, that's another thing: Information Manipulation deserves to be divided into multiple types, like what was proposed up there. One type for digital information (which is a separate power for some reason), one for physical information, one for metaphysical information, and one for ontological (or whatever we call it) information.

I think this is the other major reason for a lot of the confusion. I've encountered many arguments that say the scope must affect all things in order to qualify (what one would say expect from changing a platonic form itself) any sort of "manipulation" to be granted and was confused about that.

Mmm... well, a lot of characters get Conceptual Manipulation despite not meeting the requirement of "must affect all objects that participate in the concept," instead simply having it for affecting the concept's application to specific individuals, so that needs to be changed.

---

As for a new name for Conceptual Manipulation, I am quite partial to Form Manipulation after dwelling on it. It's a very basic name that aligns quite nicely with Platonic and Aristotelian realism, which both consider a "form" to describe, in general terms, the qualities of a particular thing. The distinction is that under Platonic or "extreme" realism, form exists independently of the matter (in this case, "what things are made of" in a broad sense, which usually refers to what we normally think of as matter anyway) of the particular things that partake in these forms, whereas Aristotelian or "moderate" realism says that form and matter are codependent - neither one may exist without the other.

Of course, if people see "Form Manipulation" as not very intuitive, then I would be fine with "Essence Manipulation" instead.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Right, that's another thing: Information Manipulation deserves to be divided into multiple types, like what was proposed up there. One type for digital information (which is a separate power for some reason), one for physical information, one for metaphysical information, and one for ontological (or whatever we call it) information.

Yeah, I believe that's a good formulation for the types.

Mmm... well, a lot of characters get Conceptual Manipulation despite not meeting the requirement of "must affect all objects that participate in the concept," instead simply having it for affecting the concept's application to specific individuals, so that needs to be changed.

Yeah, an addendum about the scope of the ability varying could be added.

---

As for a new name for Conceptual Manipulation, I am quite partial to Form Manipulation after dwelling on it. It's a very basic name that aligns quite nicely with Platonic and Aristotelian realism, which both consider a "form" to describe, in general terms, the qualities of a particular thing. The distinction is that under Platonic or "extreme" realism, form exists independently of the matter (in this case, "what things are made of" in a broad sense, which usually refers to what we normally think of as matter anyway) of the particular things that partake in these forms, whereas Aristotelian or "moderate" realism says that form and matter are codependent - neither one may exist without the other.

Of course, if people see "Form Manipulation" as not very intuitive, then I would be fine with "Essence Manipulation" instead.

Hmm, I like the idea of Form Manipulation as essence manipulation sounds like it could be more easily confused with other powers.

Thank you for your help.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Your idea of "property manip" is an application of causa manip.

Everything is a possible application of causality manip. It isn't necessarily related to that power, though.

Ok we seem to agree on that.
Eh, I’d still say given your analogy that the only difference is the area of effect. If a person is limited to say affecting oarticular humans with concept manip and makes their “warm” body tempature concept “cold” it wouldn’t really be different to someone doing the same thing to all reality in a 5x5 square. The latter person would just have better range.

Changing somethings fundamental information or essence to acquire a nee essence would still be concept manip as “essence” and “info” in this context would still be abstract qualifiers dictating the “essence.”

I mean, we could change Type 3 to that if everyone prefers, but I see quite a big difference between changing the property of something and changing the nature of the property (i.e. concept) itself. One thing affects the object, the other thing affects the property. The target is different. As said, like the difference between manipulating gravity and changing the nature of gravity itself.
As long as it's separated it probably isn't vastly important what it is listed as, but separated it should be.

This might sound silly but shouldn't information have multiple types, like information that have to do with technology , other with math/physics, and other with concepst and absract stuff?

Regardless of what we do, Information Manip should probably get different types, yes. Probably at least 2 for information as carriers of knowledge and information as fundamental thing composing the world. 3 if we fuse data manipulation into it, although it probably is better not to do that since the separate page already exists.

INFORMATION MANIPULATION: is the power to control, alter, and even destroy information itself, an incredibly useful ability given that information exists throughout everything in some form or another. On a small scale, this can allow for the analysis of information, manipulating data, and potentially even directly drawing information from sources and absorbing it to use for one's self. On a more complex and powerful scale, users of this ability can manipulate the fundamental information of the universe to warp reality, its laws, and potentially even its concepts, with ease.
TYPES OF INFORMATION MANIPULATION:

DATA INFORMATION:

The ability to manipulate or destroy or create data based information, such information has to do with technology, data, hardwares etc...

PHYSICS INFORMATION:

The ability to manipulate, destroy or create pphysic based information, which goes hand to hand with physic/mathematics information. Examples: manipulation the information about how the atomic structure of an object work or manipulating the information about how fast is the speed of light. Going even further, you can also manipulate matter themselves [such as atoms and cells] which should allow you to manipulate the information of the genetic coding if everyone and everything that consists of Cells and DNA.

CONCEPTUAL INFORMATION:

the ability to manipulate information on a conceptual level, or manipulating the information about concepts, and abstract in general, such as mathematics, concepts [like death, Fate etc....] Which also includes changes the property and nature of objects or concepts.

MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL INFORMATION:

The abability manipulate the information of spiritual and mental planes, which should include the ability to manipulate informations about souls, spirits, ghosts, minds, emotions and etc..

is this enough? Please give me more input

Hmmm... actually not a big friend of that division. The way the types are laid out is basically just Data Manip via Information Manip, Physics Manip via Information Manip, Concept Manip via Information Manip, Mind Manip via Information Manip. If it's just using other powers via information manip I don't think there's a point to the types. In my opinion, it makes more sense to differentiate the types by the different natures of information rather than the different effects one can archieve by warping reality with it.
Also, one of the ideas of expanding info manip with changing properties was exactly that it shouldn't have be concept manip, after all. So should we go for that option in the end, this wouldn't really be ideal.

The issue I have is that a "concept" is by default nothing more than a thought, an idea, and so I feel that defining a power based on a high-level interpretation of what a concept is to be faulty. Concepts as we consider them are strictly universals, which are characteristics or qualities which can be exemplified by multiple particular things. The three categories of universals include types (e.g. humanity), properties (e.g. greenness), and relations (e.g. fatherhood). Of universals, four major stances can be taken:

• Platonic/Extreme realism: Universals exist in an ideal form independently of any mind or thing.
• Aristotelian/Moderate realism: Universals are abstracted from the mind by particular things.
• Idealism: Universals are constructed in the mind and thus exist only in descriptions of things.
• Nominalism: Universals do not exist.

Of these, idealism and nominalism are specified as not meeting our requirements for Conceptual Manipulation. Realism is, of course, the only way that universals can qualify as concepts. The thing is, "lesser realism" appears to be a fabrication on our end. Extreme realism and moderate realism correspond to Platonism (type 1) and Aristotelianism (type 2) respectively, but lesser realism has no analogue in philosophy that I can find. In fact, the reason idealism and nominalism do not qualify is that they have no bearing on physical reality, albeit according to Tago, "lesser realist" concepts qualify despite having this same stipulation. The distinction between the non-qualification of idealism/nominalism and the qualification of lesser realism is based on abstractness, but according to Wikipedia, the definition of an "abstract object" is nebulous and not universally agreed upon:



For the sake of accuracy, I would like to propose renaming "Conceptual Manipulation" to something else in order to avoid confusion. To what exactly, I don't know. Property Manipulation, Essence Manipulation, Universal Manipulation, whatever works for the community. Either way, I feel that type 3 should be reclassified as something else (Subjective Reality, perhaps?). As for splitting the power based on "affecting universals themselves" vs "affecting universals as they apply to a particular object", at a glance, it seems like an issue of scope rather than a categorical error, so I lean towards disagreement on that front.

Gotta disagree with the renaming. As said, we pick our definitions ourself and don't have to care what others have defined the terms as before in that regard. Like we wouldn't change our chi manip page to reflect every view on what chi was ever thought to be. The entire philosophy stuff is not that relevant for us.
As long as the definition on the page is clear there is no confusion, regardless of what it is named. Heck, 99.9% of the readers know nothing of the universals stuff anyway. (And if someone doesn't read the page they're lost anyway)

Obviously, I don't agree on the "it's just scale" thing. It's like saying magic is physics manipulation on a small scale, since magic breaks the laws of physics to make something happen. Sure, magic breaks the laws of physics in some aspect, but it doesn't at any point change the actual nature of physics. You wouldn't say someone can resist physics manipulation due to being able to resist magic.
Similarily, yes, giving a human the properties of a dwarf technically changes which concepts apply to it, but it at no point affects these concepts directly. It doesn't change the nature of "humanity" when it does so. Without a statement, it's questionable whether such a power even directly interacts with concepts in any sense.
It should, at minimum, be considered a lesser type.

 

[Vietthai96]

I'm fine with either way, Property Manip is fine though, but again i think it just some kind of a watered down information manip, and a mixture of some other haxs

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Probably at least 2 for information as carriers of knowledge and information as fundamental thing composing the world.

Whats the difference between both?? I am not able to visualize how they would work.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I mean, we could change Type 3 to that if everyone prefers, but I see quite a big difference between changing the property of something and changing the nature of the property (i.e. concept) itself. One thing affects the object, the other thing affects the property. The target is different. As said, like the difference between manipulating gravity and changing the nature of gravity itself.
As long as it's separated it probably isn't vastly important what it is listed as, but separated it should be.

I'm actually a fan of removing type 3 and simply redirecting those instances to Subjective Reality, in essence bringing X concept into reality as a real thing and applying it, but affecting the universal concept over an area. I think that fixes concerns.

Regardless of what we do, Information Manip should probably get different types, yes. Probably at least 2 for information as carriers of knowledge and information as fundamental thing composing the world. 3 if we fuse data manipulation into it, although it probably is better not to do that since the separate page already exists.

Well, I think Data manipulation should just get absorbed, I don't really see why it would need to exist in isolation as essentially a small subset of info maniplation.

Hmmm... actually not a big friend of that division. The way the types are laid out is basically just Data Manip via Information Manip, Physics Manip via Information Manip, Concept Manip via Information Manip, Mind Manip via Information Manip. If it's just using other powers via information manip I don't think there's a point to the types. In my opinion, it makes more sense to differentiate the types by the different natures of information rather than the different effects one can archieve by warping reality with it.

Hmmm, I'd have to hear more arguments but doesn't sound unreasonable.

Also, one of the ideas of expanding info manip with changing properties was exactly that it shouldn't have be concept manip, after all. So should we go for that option in the end, this wouldn't really be ideal.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Antvasima]

Everything is a possible application of causality manip. It isn't necessarily related to that power, though.

I mean, we could change Type 3 to that if everyone prefers, but I see quite a big difference between changing the property of something and changing the nature of the property (i.e. concept) itself. One thing affects the object, the other thing affects the property. The target is different. As said, like the difference between manipulating gravity and changing the nature of gravity itself.
As long as it's separated it probably isn't vastly important what it is listed as, but separated it should be.

Regardless of what we do, Information Manip should probably get different types, yes. Probably at least 2 for information as carriers of knowledge and information as fundamental thing composing the world. 3 if we fuse data manipulation into it, although it probably is better not to do that since the separate page already exists.

Hmmm... actually not a big friend of that division. The way the types are laid out is basically just Data Manip via Information Manip, Physics Manip via Information Manip, Concept Manip via Information Manip, Mind Manip via Information Manip. If it's just using other powers via information manip I don't think there's a point to the types. In my opinion, it makes more sense to differentiate the types by the different natures of information rather than the different effects one can archieve by warping reality with it.
Also, one of the ideas of expanding info manip with changing properties was exactly that it shouldn't have be concept manip, after all. So should we go for that option in the end, this wouldn't really be ideal.

Gotta disagree with the renaming. As said, we pick our definitions ourself and don't have to care what others have defined the terms as before in that regard. Like we wouldn't change our chi manip page to reflect every view on what chi was ever thought to be. The entire philosophy stuff is not that relevant for us.
As long as the definition on the page is clear there is no confusion, regardless of what it is named. Heck, 99.9% of the readers know nothing of the universals stuff anyway. (And if someone doesn't read the page they're lost anyway)

Obviously, I don't agree on the "it's just scale" thing. It's like saying magic is physics manipulation on a small scale, since magic breaks the laws of physics to make something happen. Sure, magic breaks the laws of physics in some aspect, but it doesn't at any point change the actual nature of physics. You wouldn't say someone can resist physics manipulation due to being able to resist magic.
Similarily, yes, giving a human the properties of a dwarf technically changes which concepts apply to it, but it at no point affects these concepts directly. It doesn't change the nature of "humanity" when it does so. Without a statement, it's questionable whether such a power even directly interacts with concepts in any sense.
It should, at minimum, be considered a lesser type.

Thank you very much for helping out here DontTalk. What, if any, changes do you think that we should apply here in practice?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out here DontTalk. What, if any, changes do you think that we should apply here in practice?

@DontTalkDT

 

[Vietthai96]

@DontTalkDT

to put it simple, he want to make a new ability called Property Manipulation, and the ability is...like the name implies, manipulating the properties that made up something or someone or etc........uhhh like changing the properties that made up metal and turn it into something else, or changing the nature of something but not on conceptual or law level

 

[Antvasima]

Well, that is what he originally said, but I wonder if he has further developed his views since then, and has some concrete suggestions for a new page or somesuch.

 

[Vietthai96]

Well, that is what he originally said, but I wonder if he has further developed his views since then, and has some concrete suggestions for a new page or somesuch.

I think he already have a solid plan, he just too lazy or busy at this point

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. He is quite busy IRL, yes.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Okay. He is quite busy IRL, yes.

We may need some more staff input as there seems to be disagreement regarding the name of the new power, what to do with concept manip type 3, and how to structure the new information types.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you properly explain everything they need to evaluate please? After that I can ask some of them to take a look.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Can you properly explain everything they need to evaluate please? After that I can ask some of them to take a look.

Concept manipulation type 3 needs to be hashed out. Some have stated it should remain and encompass non universal “concepts” that are dependant on perception. The other stance is turning it into subjective reality.

Kingpin suggested changing the name of concept manip to “form manipulation” but DT wishes to keep the name.

Information needs to be redone which everyone agrees to. Kingpin and I agreed to solit it into Data, physical, metaphysical, and ontological types. DT stated he’d rather just have teo types of data manipulation for knowledge storage and one for ontological info.

 

[KingPin0422]

Okay, I heard an alternative idea that I think may be interesting: instead of removing type 3 conceptual manipulation, we can section it off as its own thing which keeps the "Conceptual Manipulation" name, with types 1 and 2 being classified as Essence Manipulation instead. As I said already, concepts at their core are just patterns we form in our minds that are derived from sense data: we perceive something's qualities with our senses, we observe other things that have the same qualities, and then our minds start to associate that specific set of qualities with a general object. For example, someone develops a concept of "tree" by observing multiple different trees, mentally dissecting the characteristics these trees have in common, and then forming a perception of what a tree is based on these observations.

Basically, the idea of "Conceptual Manipulation" as I'm imagining it can best be described as: "The ability to manipulate someone's perceptions/ideas of objects." It'd be kind of like Subjective Reality, in a sense, but it doesn't necessarily need to actively affect reality based on ideas. On the other hand, if the essences of things are ideas governing the existence of those things - as it is in verses like Lobotomy Corporation, Megami Tensei, or any other setting in which essential reality is shaped by collective beliefs and ideas - then we can classify it as a combination of Conceptual Manipulation and Essence Manipulation depending on whether or not these ideas can exist without observers to host these ideas.

Anyway, I maintain my stance on Information Manipulation because it's not like we don't already have powers that largely depend on other powers (see: Magic and Reality Warping), so we at least have an established precedent for this kind of thing. I also remain strictly opposed to splitting Essence Manipulation based on whether it works on an individual scale or on a universal scale. Why can't that just be a detail to be specified on the profiles themselves?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Okay, I heard an alternative idea that I think may be interesting: instead of removing type 3 conceptual manipulation, we can section it off as its own thing which keeps the "Conceptual Manipulation" name, with types 1 and 2 being classified as Essence Manipulation instead. As I said already, concepts at their core are just patterns we form in our minds that are derived from sense data: we perceive something's qualities with our senses, we observe other things that have the same qualities, and then our minds start to associate that specific set of qualities with a general object. For example, someone develops a concept of "tree" by observing multiple different trees, mentally dissecting the characteristics these trees have in common, and then forming a perception of what a tree is based on these observations.

Basically, the idea of "Conceptual Manipulation" as I'm imagining it can best be described as: "The ability to manipulate someone's perceptions/ideas of objects." It'd be kind of like Subjective Reality, in a sense, but it doesn't necessarily need to actively affect reality based on ideas. On the other hand, if the essences of things are ideas governing the existence of those things - as it is in verses like Lobotomy Corporation, Megami Tensei, or any other setting in which essential reality is shaped by collective beliefs and ideas - then we can classify it as a combination of Conceptual Manipulation and Essence Manipulation depending on whether or not these ideas can exist without observers to host these ideas.

Anyway, I maintain my stance on Information Manipulation because it's not like we don't already have powers that largely depend on other powers (see: Magic and Reality Warping), so we at least have an established precedent for this kind of thing. I also remain strictly opposed to splitting Essence Manipulation based on whether it works on an individual scale or on a universal scale. Why can't that just be a detail to be specified on the profiles themselves?

So anything involving thought influencing reality based on abstracts would be type 2? Or type 3? Like collective society breeding an existence based on their perception of a phenomena?

 

[Antvasima]

Concept manipulation type 3 needs to be hashed out. Some have stated it should remain and encompass non universal “concepts” that are dependant on perception. The other stance is turning it into subjective reality.

Kingpin suggested changing the name of concept manip to “form manipulation” but DT wishes to keep the name.

Information needs to be redone which everyone agrees to. Kingpin and I agreed to solit it into Data, physical, metaphysical, and ontological types. DT stated he’d rather just have teo types of data manipulation for knowledge stor

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000

What do you think about this?

 

[KingPin0422]

So anything involving thought influencing reality based on abstracts would be type 2? Or type 3? Like collective society breeding an existence based on their perception of a phenomena?

Again, that would be its own thing from Essence Manipulation while also intersecting with it. Concepts as I'm considering them here are simply people's perceptions of things based on sense data, which basically is what type 3 is now, but in my vision, it becomes separate from types 1 and 2 power-wise, yet can overlap with them depending on how the verse portrays these perceptions in an overarching ontological sense.

 

[Everything12]

From what I know of the way both the Wiki and a majority of the Verses on the Wiki treats Concepts. They don't actual involve Perception at all, most treat them as the abstract rules and order of reality that are set in stone and won't change regardless of how the inhabitants of the verses perceive them.

Whiles ite true that some beliefs and verse treat Concepts as mutable things that change with perception, most don't. As evidenced by how many more verses have Type 1 and Type 2 Concepts unlike the scarcer few that are Type 3. So not calling these Concepts as Concepts on the Wiki anymore doesn't make sense.

 

[Ogbunabali]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000

What do you think about this?

I think the current Conceptual Manipulation is fine. We do need to divorce the still prevalent idea that any mention of concept = Platon though.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

I am personally inclined to agree with Ogbunabali and Everything12, but it depends on what DontTalk thinks.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

From what I know of the way both the Wiki and a majority of the Verses on the Wiki treats Concepts. They don't actual involve Perception at all, most treat them as the abstract rules and order of reality that are set in stone and won't change regardless of how the inhabitants of the verses perceive them.

Whiles ite true that some beliefs and verse treat Concepts as mutable things that change with perception, most don't. As evidenced by how many more verses have Type 1 and Type 2 Concepts unlike the scarcer few that are Type 3. So not calling these Concepts as Concepts on the Wiki anymore doesn't make sense.

I think alot of the confusion stems from people manipulating those concepts in some way. So more so being vehicles for those concepts to have altered effects on reality (ie., humans being afraid of the concept of the ocean and birthing a monster who is the abstract embodiment of it).

 

[Everything12]

Most confusion comes from the same place as all those people who talk about 'Platonic concepts' while not even having a basic understanding of what that entails. Chinese whispers that spread so far they become accepted as truth.

 

[QuasiYuri]

You could just do a "Abstract Manipulation" and call it a day.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Most confusion comes from the same place as all those people who talk about 'Platonic concepts' while not even having a basic understanding of what that entails. Chinese whispers that spread so far they become accepted as truth.

You could just do a "Abstract Manipulation" and call it a day.

I think the current Conceptual Manipulation is fine. We do need to divorce the still prevalent idea that any mention of concept = Platon though.

Thank you for responding. Do any of you have thoughts on the proposed information manipulation rework?

 

[KingPin0422]

From what I know of the way both the Wiki and a majority of the Verses on the Wiki treats Concepts. They don't actual involve Perception at all, most treat them as the abstract rules and order of reality that are set in stone and won't change regardless of how the inhabitants of the verses perceive them.

Whiles ite true that some beliefs and verse treat Concepts as mutable things that change with perception, most don't. As evidenced by how many more verses have Type 1 and Type 2 Concepts unlike the scarcer few that are Type 3. So not calling these Concepts as Concepts on the Wiki anymore doesn't make sense.

You're forgetting that A) concepts don't need to be any of those types at all, as per the "Non-Qualifying Concepts" section, B) this doesn't account for verses where concepts fit multiple types, such as the examples I already gave, and C) this only matters for settings with characters that, y'know, actually manipulate these abstract ideas. I mean, I suppose we could just have it so that Conceptual Manipulation can be indexed as multiple types simultaneously if people insist on not splitting it, but the power will still have to change to accommodate this new application, I reckon.