Conceptual Manipulation Clarifications/Revisions

[Vietthai96]

I'm against the erasure of Concept type 3. While i can understand the vagueness of this type because it cover local concept, not universal; but again concept by itself is a vague, abstract physiology, we can't just nuke the type because it vague, by that logic we should nuke the concept manip itself for being vague, abstract. this kind of ability is heavily depend on verse, so we can just based on how the concept of that verse work to revise ability accordingly.

Also while we have standard, at the same time we are an indexing community and the wiki itaelf is an indexing site, remove the ability or some type of it i don't think we should, but well it is my personal opinion

 

[KingPin0422]

I'm against the erasure of Concept type 3. While i can understand the vagueness of this type because it cover local concept, not universal; but again concept by itself is a vague, abstract physiology, we can't just nuke the type because it vague, by that logic we should nuke the concept manip itself for being vague, abstract. this kind of ability is heavily depend on verse, so we can just based on how the concept of that verse work to revise ability accordingly.

Also while we have standard, at the same time we are an indexing community and the wiki itaelf is an indexing site, remove the ability or some type of it i don't think we should, but well it is my personal opinion

Hmm? I said nothing about type 3 itself being vague. My argument went along the lines of:

1. Type 3 is something we made up and has no basis in real world philosophy. The closest thing to it is idealism, which we consider "non-qualifying" because according to us, idealistic concepts are not abstract, even though there is no consensus on what defines an abstract object, only on which objects are abstract.
2. Type 3's applications may be more accurately indexed as an extension of Subjective Reality, considering that they are shaped by individual or collective perceptions of things, and they usually also govern reality - which is why they are often listed as type 1 or 2 instead, despite their definitions specifically as existing independently of cognition.
3. As I said already, type 3 seems to contradict the rule that concepts must exist independently of the mind and should have some amount of relevance to physical reality. That's just my perspective, though (no pun intended), and I could always be wrong.

 

[Vietthai96]

Uh no i'm not reply specifically to you KingPin, but rather reply generally to people who want to erase Type 3. I can understand your point about some concept being idealism rather than actual "concept", but that doesn't mean type 3 is contradict, if anything it is depend on verse/fiction and how we treat it on character profile, so at best i think we can modify type 3, give it more strict requirement

Also Subjective Reality, Reality Warping and Pocket Reality is kinda a bunch of very general abilities which encompass many things @.@

 

[Antvasima]

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.

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'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.

@DontTalkDT

Your further help would be appreciated here.

 

[Everything12]

Type 3 is strict enough as is; barely any profiles have it now. Also we currently do have the possibility of having Concepts apply as multiple Types, but Type 1 is a straight upgrade of Type 2 and barely any Profile has Type 3.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation.

 

[Arkenis]

Don't we have information manipulation for manipulating the information of something? A power we currently treat as separate from Concept Manipulation. I know this thread is to clarify for Concept in general, but in the case of JJK it seems more like we should just go with Information Manipulation because that's what it called out to be.

Agreed

 

[Arkenis]

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

W. I have two verses that are like this

 

[Vietthai96]

Abstract Manipulation is even more "abstract" than Conceptual Manipulation. It just make thing worse, disagree

 

[deonment]

I agree on the splitting of Essence Manip and Concept manip, and this makes me want to ask a question, for example, if in a verse Information is a fundamental aspect of people's existence would say information qualify under Essence, or would Essence fall under the standards of our current concept manip in that it needs more than that to qualify

 

[Everything12]

Abstract Manipulation doesn't sound aesthetically pleasing, and a bit too vague. I guess Essence Manipulation works, and I'm pretty sure the Information the above describes would be an accurate description of what we would consider an 'Essence', the fundamental abstract aspect of a being's existence beyond the Body, Mind, and Soul.

 

[Antvasima]

Abstract Manipulation doesn't sound aesthetically pleasing, and a bit too vague. I guess Essence Manipulation works, and I'm pretty sure the Information the above describes would be an accurate description of what we would consider an 'Essence', the fundamental abstract aspect of a being's existence beyond the Body, Mind, and Soul.

@QuasiYuri @Duedate8898 @DontTalkDT @Ogbunabali

What do you think about this?

 

[Duedate8898]

Sorry but stuff like conceptual manipulation and whatever else this has turned into is out of my comfort zone so I can't confidently give input here. I only made my first comment because I felt the verse in question didn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Abstract Manipulation doesn't sound good to me. Abstract means "existing as an idea, feeling, or quality, not as a material object", which is just way to vague and crosses with things like emotion manipulation and mind manipulation, which it shouldn't.
IMO Concept Manipulation shouldn't be renamed, as the term is well established and not wrong.

Beyond that I'm fine with a number of solutions. I think it's clear that something needs to be done with Concept Manip Type 3. Whether we delete it, change what it means or clarify what it is currently supposed to be, I don't care an awful lot, but something should be done.
I'm by now relatively neutral on doing a property or essence manip page. It of course also depends on which solution we chose for the other stuff.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Abstract Manipulation doesn't sound good to me. Abstract means "existing as an idea, feeling, or quality, not as a material object", which is just way to vague and crosses with things like emotion manipulation and mind manipulation, which it shouldn't.
IMO Concept Manipulation shouldn't be renamed, as the term is well established and not wrong.

Beyond that I'm fine with a number of solutions. I think it's clear that something needs to be done with Concept Manip Type 3. Whether we delete it, change what it means or clarify what it is currently supposed to be, I don't care an awful lot, but something should be done.
I'm by now relatively neutral on doing a property or essence manip page. It of course also depends on which solution we chose for the other stuff.

Can you expound on why you disagree with splitting info manip into data, physical, metaphysical, and ontological as kingpin suggested? You seemed very opposed but several others seem to like that idea.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Can you expound on why you disagree with splitting info manip into data, physical, metaphysical, and ontological as kingpin suggested? You seemed very opposed but several others seem to like that idea.

Which post of kingpin are you referring to in that regard?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Which post of kingpin are you referring to in that regard?

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.

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.

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.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I see. I never really said anything regarding that post, I think?
I replied to another separation of the information manip page, in which I said that there is no point in doing types for just what comes down to the ability to use other powers via information manipulation. Like, when we have Data Manipulation as power, we don't need it as type of Info Manip. If we have physics manip as power, we don't need a info manip type that is for being able to do physics manip via info manip. Stuff like that falls more into possible uses and can on profiles simply be written as "physics manipulation via information manipulation".

However, as said before, I agree in principle that information manipulation could use some types. Whether the types KingPin mentioned are good depends on what these types mean exactly. What are metaphysical or ontological information? Do they differ in nature or just in range of application?

IMO, information comes in three fundamental categories. One is virtual information, which is covered by Data Manip and would hence gets no type.
Another type is information as in knowledge. I know characters that can make it so that no information can go outside a certain place preventing anyone outside from knowing what is going on inside or characters that can destroy information making it so that nobody can know it anymore. That would be this type.
The third type would then be information that composes reality. Basically, the kind with which you can reality warp the real world in much the same way that data manip allows you to reality warp a virtual world. This would in my opinion cover all law manipulation, concept manipulation or otherwise reality-warping applications, as those are higher levels of the same kind of information i.e. the information that composes reality. The specification of whether an info manip user can use this type to affect laws, concepts, causality, physics or whatever else would be signified by the presence of the corresponding abilities on the profile. (Just like the applications of Magic or Reality Warping get clarified)
This type can be split up further should there be a good reason to do so, though. E.g. if we end up deciding that property/essence manip should be a subtype of info manip it might make sense to make that an extra type as, at that point, whether that is an application wouldn't be shown by another ability anymore (as it would then not be concept manip).

So yeah, all depends on what is necessary for reasonable clarity on profiles. It just is a multi-purpose ability that will need additional abilities to specify its effect.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I see. I never really said anything regarding that post, I think?
I replied to another separation of the information manip page, in which I said that there is no point in doing types for just what comes down to the ability to use other powers via information manipulation. Like, when we have Data Manipulation as power, we don't need it as type of Info Manip. If we have physics manip as power, we don't need a info manip type that is for being able to do physics manip via info manip. Stuff like that falls more into possible uses and can on profiles simply be written as "physics manipulation via information manipulation".

However, as said before, I agree in principle that information manipulation could use some types. Whether the types KingPin mentioned are good depends on what these types mean exactly. What are metaphysical or ontological information? Do they differ in nature or just in range of application?

IMO, information comes in three fundamental categories. One is virtual information, which is covered by Data Manip and would hence gets no type.
Another type is information as in knowledge. I know characters that can make it so that no information can go outside a certain place preventing anyone outside from knowing what is going on inside or characters that can destroy information making it so that nobody can know it anymore. That would be this type.
The third type would then be information that composes reality. Basically, the kind with which you can reality warp the real world in much the same way that data manip allows you to reality warp a virtual world. This would in my opinion cover all law manipulation, concept manipulation or otherwise reality-warping applications, as those are higher levels of the same kind of information i.e. the information that composes reality. The specification of whether an info manip user can use this type to affect laws, concepts, causality, physics or whatever else would be signified by the presence of the corresponding abilities on the profile. (Just like the applications of Magic or Reality Warping get clarified)
This type can be split up further should there be a good reason to do so, though. E.g. if we end up deciding that property/essence manip should be a subtype of info manip it might make sense to make that an extra type as, at that point, whether that is an application wouldn't be shown by another ability anymore (as it would then not be concept manip).

So yeah, all depends on what is necessary for reasonable clarity on profiles. It just is a multi-purpose ability that will need additional abilities to specify its effect.

Thanks for the detailed response. I think the reason for splitting them as such would simply to be to cover verses in which information is more fundamental than spiritual/physical stuff and in which there are hierarchies. If info makes up the real world in one media, but makes up matter, and spirit in another media, the latter would cover more. Ontological would be for information that comprises both and or other things like concepts and such.

Otherwise Ontological would then need further specification specific to the verse which seems like more work than knowledge, physical, metaphysical (would cover spirits and thoughts and what not), and ontological.

But, I also don't mind your idea either as it fills the hole that needs to be covered.

 

[QuasiYuri]

@QuasiYuri @Duedate8898 @DontTalkDT @Ogbunabali

What do you think about this?

My view is definitely that Abstract Manipulation is better, especially since it would finally make sense with Abstract Existence.

However it would most likely clash with the wiki too much and I can't give my full view in my current state so I would prefer if I wasn't pinged on that.

 

[Antvasima]

As usual, I think that DontTalk makes sense, and am fine with the solutions that he thinks are best to apply here.

 

[Vietthai96]

I can understand DontTalkDT view, but if we really do split Information Manipulation into type, should we also fix some information in Abstract Existence and High Godly Regen cuz right now Information by itself is something fundamental, split it into type could possibly affect those 2 things, well this is just my thought

 

[Antvasima]

I can understand DontTalkDT view, but if we really do split Information Manipulation into type, should we also fix some information in Abstract Existence and High Godly Regen cuz right now Information by itself is something fundamental, split it into type could possibly affect those 2 things, well this is just my thought

That seems to be a good point.

What do you think @DontTalkDT ?

 

[KingPin0422]

Okay, so, on the topic of Information Manipulation: I really can't think of any practical reason to keep Data Manipulation separate. The only argument raised so far is "well, we already have the page, and it would be a waste to just delete it," but we don't even need to rewrite anything about it, just subsume it under another power. The description can stay the same and the examples can stay the same - the only impact it would have is having to change every page with Data Manipulation listed, which I don't know if that is possible for a bot to do, but if not, the Data Users category only has 427 members, so we'd be able to get that done in a day at most.

Editing pages in the Information Users category will be more time-consuming with the category having 1,074 members (plus two incorrectly categorized characters), but since we'd have to do that anyway if we plan on subcategorizing the power, I think we might as well just do the thing with merging Data Manipulation into Information Manipulation. Shouldn't be a lot of extra work since I'm sure many data users are also information users.

I will comment on Conceptual Manipulation stuff later.

 

[deonment]

I mean, I think both should still be a thing given data being on a more fundamental level than information on a digital level at least, given data holding an atom molecule/matter in general relationship with information, with data being for characters that actually manipulate the underlying code or base unit of digital realities while that type of information manip would belong to people who do stuff like warping digital realities or glitching out stuff (without any proof of what I listed for data manip)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so, on the topic of Information Manipulation: I really can't think of any practical reason to keep Data Manipulation separate. The only argument raised so far is "well, we already have the page, and it would be a waste to just delete it," but we don't even need to rewrite anything about it, just subsume it under another power. The description can stay the same and the examples can stay the same - the only impact it would have is having to change every page with Data Manipulation listed, which I don't know if that is possible for a bot to do, but if not, the Data Users category only has 427 members, so we'd be able to get that done in a day at most.

Editing pages in the Information Users category will be more time-consuming with the category having 1,074 members (plus two incorrectly categorized characters), but since we'd have to do that anyway if we plan on subcategorizing the power, I think we might as well just do the thing with merging Data Manipulation into Information Manipulation. Shouldn't be a lot of extra work since I'm sure many data users are also information users.

I will comment on Conceptual Manipulation stuff later.

That is not how you check which pages that need to be edited. Here is how you do so:

Pages that link to "Data Manipulation" | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

Pages that link to "Information Manipulation" | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I personally prefer to keep Information Manipulation and Data Manipulation separate, given that one refers to reality, and the other to cyberspace hacking.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think that we should do based on this thread, in general?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

It doesn't seem like any of your suggestions have sufficient staff support to be applied.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

It doesn't seem like any of your suggestions have sufficient staff support to be applied.

? This thread OP doesn’t have any suggestions. It’s asking for clarification and changes based in previous discussions from staff and the ones suggested by staff here.

Most people here seem to agree on things, it’s just getting staff to come to a firm stance and apply the changes.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are your conclusions here so far then? From what I recall there has been lots of conflicting suggestions without any consensus here.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

So what are your conclusions here so far then? From what I recall there has been lots of conflicting suggestions without any consensus here.

Information manipulation will be changed to give it types.

Essence or property manipulation will be added as a power.

Conceptual manip 3 needs to be more specified.

An addendum added to conceptual manipulation that affects can be localized and don’t have to effect reality on a universal+ scale to qualify so long as they affect all relevant concepts in the AOE.

 

[Antvasima]

Information manipulation will be changed to give it types.

Essence or property manipulation will be added as a power.

Conceptual manip 3 needs to be more specified.

An addendum added to conceptual manipulation that affects can be localized and don’t have to effect reality on a universal+ scale to qualify so long as they affect all relevant concepts in the AOE.

I am not sure if all of that has truly been sufficiently accepted by our staff.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I am not sure if all of that has truly been sufficiently accepted by our staff.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think?

You can reference posts from everything, DT, and Kingpin. It’s all here in the thread.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not have the available time and focus. My apologies.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I can understand DontTalkDT view, but if we really do split Information Manipulation into type, should we also fix some information in Abstract Existence and High Godly Regen cuz right now Information by itself is something fundamental, split it into type could possibly affect those 2 things, well this is just my thought

I think it wouldn't have much of an impact on abstract existence, since all forms are still abstract (by our current definition of abstract existence).
For High-Godly it would likely need to be specified that the type of information that constructs reality is meant.

Okay, so, on the topic of Information Manipulation: I really can't think of any practical reason to keep Data Manipulation separate. The only argument raised so far is "well, we already have the page, and it would be a waste to just delete it," but we don't even need to rewrite anything about it, just subsume it under another power. The description can stay the same and the examples can stay the same - the only impact it would have is having to change every page with Data Manipulation listed, which I don't know if that is possible for a bot to do, but if not, the Data Users category only has 427 members, so we'd be able to get that done in a day at most.

Editing pages in the Information Users category will be more time-consuming with the category having 1,074 members (plus two incorrectly categorized characters), but since we'd have to do that anyway if we plan on subcategorizing the power, I think we might as well just do the thing with merging Data Manipulation into Information Manipulation. Shouldn't be a lot of extra work since I'm sure many data users are also information users.

I will comment on Conceptual Manipulation stuff later.

I mean, arguably data deals more with computers and virtual stuff then with reality and is different in that sense. So I don't think there is much of a reason to bother.
Then again, if you want to do all the edits I don't really care.

I mean, I think both should still be a thing given data being on a more fundamental level than information on a digital level at least, given data holding an atom molecule/matter in general relationship with information, with data being for characters that actually manipulate the underlying code or base unit of digital realities while that type of information manip would belong to people who do stuff like warping digital realities or glitching out stuff (without any proof of what I listed for data manip)

That sounds more like two levels of data manipulation IMO (and I'm not sure if the distinction between modifying code and warping a digital reality that is made up of code makes sense).

Anyway, I personally prefer to keep Information Manipulation and Data Manipulation separate, given that one refers to reality, and the other to cyberspace hacking.

Generally my preferance, too.

Essence or property manipulation will be added as a power.

Have we agreed on that already?
I mean, I would be ok with it, but I thought we were still debating whether to do that, make it type 3 concept manip or a type of information manip.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Have we agreed on that already?
I mean, I would be ok with it, but I thought we were still debating whether to do that, make it type 3 concept manip or a type of information manip.

Most people have discussed wanting it added from what I recall and I beljeve you stated someyhing along the lines of not caring if it was added so long as concept types 1/2 remain “concept” manip.

I don’t think most would mind keeping and editing type 3 or simply making a new power for it. I prefer the latter due to kingoins points and type 3 just genuinly being ethereal in its indexing.

but as long as the problem is solved I am good with whatever staff decides is the best route.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out DontTalk. I definitely want to keep data manipulation and information manipulation separate.

We also need considerable staff consensus for these types of revisions.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Thank you for helping out DontTalk. I definitely want to keep data manipulation and information manipulation separate.

We also need considerable staff consensus for these types of revisions.

I agree, the more staff opinions the better I believe.