Conceptual Manipulation Clarifications/Revisions

[Dr._whiteee]

Hello All,

The topic of this discussion is in regards to how we treat conceptual manipulation and is sort of stemming from the current JjK hax revisions thread, and this incomplete thread discussing some of the concepts I am touching upon today.

Essentially, we don't really have an avenue for abilities that still affect the concept, essence, or information of a thing, but don't also affect said concept on a universal scale. In the JjK thread, for instance, I point out how matter and spirit are both fundamentally information that designates each quality. An example brought up in DT's thread was that of Ichibei Hyosube from bleach and his "name severing technique". It appears as if localized concept manipulation is simply not accounted for (even if the mechanism by which the effect is achieved does universally affect reality) and thus would obviously lead to issues with indexing powers.

So this thread only really touches upon clarifying the nature of conceptual manipulation (types 2 & 3 in particular) and its parameters, and discussing how to go about treating localized conceptual manipulation that doesn't have reality-spanning effects as a consequence of said manipulation. Whether that be modifying the current types, adding a new type, assigning a separate power to these feats, or adding a new power altogether.

@Ultima @QuasiYuri @DontTalkDT @Everything12

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Bump

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Bump

 

[QuasiYuri]

What you said is basically type 3.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

What you said is basically type 3.

So should type 3’s definition be updated?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Type 3 doesn't work ...since its perception based.
Information/Concept/Name of an individual doesn't get affected by perception of people or even the the individual's own perception.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Unless it's shown to govern all of reality, and the destruction of said concept would alter reality then it's not type 2.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/god-of-war-concepts-of-war-and-fear.120715/#post-3960319

At least from what I've been told on other threads. (Thread is from before the concept merge, so type 4 still existed)

 

[Dr._whiteee]

So it seems like we need more coverage for this ability.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Eh, type 3 is supposed to be low-scale concepts. At least that's what it was supposed to be when the revision for it was accepted.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Eh, type 3 is supposed to be low-scale concepts. At least that's what it was supposed to be when the revision for it was accepted.

Would the universal effects need to be shown for qualification? That seems to be where the issue is. Some wording may have to be changed. I believe @Ultima_Reality had thoughts on this.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Eh, Idc enough to correct it anyway. But it was def meant to be for low-scale concepts like random stuff infused with "concept of x".

 

[Duedate8898]

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.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

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.

There can be intersections between powers. In this case the information dictates body and spirit essence. Cursed spirits pretty much being straight up type 3’s.

 

[Vietthai96]

this also depend on the context in verse

 

[Dr._whiteee]

@Antvasima Would you be able to contact more staff to give input on this thread and potentially make any changes that need to be applied?

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Everything12

The OP wants you to take a look at this thread. Would you be willing to help out please?

 

[Everything12]

Concepts and Conceptual Manipulation being assigned to non-Universal abstractions has also always bothered me.

Type 3 is confusing and while at times I thought what Yuri is saying, I've constantly been told it's not that. As for Information Manipulation, we currently only give it for stuff that directly mentions Information and not Information sounding things... but I wouldn't be opposed to assigned the manipulation of the abstract identity of a thing on a non-Universal scale as Information.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Type 3 is confusing and while at times I thought what Yuri is saying, I've constantly been told it's not that. As for Information Manipulation, we currently only give it for stuff that directly mentions Information and not Information sounding things... but I wouldn't be opposed to assigned the manipulation of the abstract identity of a thing on a non-Universal scale as Information.

Tbh both are the same under different portrayals.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Agreed. If the info dictates the essence of something it should qualify.

 

[DontTalkDT]

First, let me say that concept manipulation doesn't need to be truly universal and, since a concept can apply to only one thing, could also only affect a single thing when changed. What I mean is that it doesn't need to be 3-A or anything. The distinction for something being or not being a concept should be about nature not tier. Maybe that is clear, but I always thought the formulation a little awkward.
However, concepts should be... general... to use a vague term. Concepts, in our usage of them, are to laws of nature, what laws of nature are to matter. They are the cause of the laws, in a certain sense, and dictate how they work. Or perhaps it would be better to say they are the cause of the properties of the objects which dictate, based on the laws, how things work.
In any case, if you use a spell to create cold fire that might be breaking the laws of physics but we wouldn't usually associate it with law manipulation. If you however twist the laws of nature so that all fire in your AoE is cold that would probably be considered law manipulation, even if that one flame is still the only one affected in practice.
A similar distinction might be meaningful for concepts.
I actually mentioned one idea regarding this in the P&A addition thread a while ago: We should have a property manipulation page. Or maybe one could call it essence manipulation... idk. Or we could extend the information manipulation page as some suggested in this thread already, although that might end up confusing. (Also, that page really needs 2 types to separate knowledge information from nature information...)
The new ability, under whatever name, would be having the ability to change the nature of just one object, making an exception of its usual concept/nature/law, rather than changing the rule that a concept represents.

What Type 3 Concept Manip is concerned... regardless of what might have been intended in the last revision, in practice it still just talks about purely mental concepts. IMO it shouldn't be used for what we are talking about either, as that is just not really concept manip.
I would argue Type 3 should just be deleted, as both manipulation of information/knowledge/mental things and changing the nature of singular targets is better covered by other abilities. (information & mind manip for the former)

 

[Dr._whiteee]

First, let me say that concept manipulation doesn't need to be truly universal and, since a concept can apply to only one thing, could also only affect a single thing when changed. What I mean is that it doesn't need to be 3-A or anything. The distinction for something being or not being a concept should be about nature not tier. Maybe that is clear, but I always thought the formulation a little awkward.
However, concepts should be... general... to use a vague term. Concepts, in our usage of them, are to laws of nature, what laws of nature are to matter. They are the cause of the laws, in a certain sense, and dictate how they work. Or perhaps it would be better to say they are the cause of the properties of the objects which dictate, based on the laws, how things work.
In any case, if you use a spell to create cold fire that might be breaking the laws of physics but we wouldn't usually associate it with law manipulation. If you however twist the laws of nature so that all fire in your AoE is cold that would probably be considered law manipulation, even if that one flame is still the only one affected in practice.
A similar distinction might be meaningful for concepts.
I actually mentioned one idea regarding this in the P&A addition thread a while ago: We should have a property manipulation page. Or maybe one could call it essence manipulation... idk. Or we could extend the information manipulation page as some suggested in this thread already, although that might end up confusing. (Also, that page really needs 2 types to separate knowledge information from nature information...)
The new ability, under whatever name, would be having the ability to change the nature of just one object, making an exception of its usual concept/nature/law, rather than changing the rule that a concept represents.

What Type 3 Concept Manip is concerned... regardless of what might have been intended in the last revision, in practice it still just talks about purely mental concepts. IMO it shouldn't be used for what we are talking about either, as that is just not really concept manip.
I would argue Type 3 should just be deleted, as both manipulation of information/knowledge/mental things and changing the nature of singular targets is better covered by other abilities. (information & mind manip for the former)

Well wouldn’t type 3 be better reserved for “subjective concepts” that would still abstractly represent general concepts that are modified by a person’s outlook on it? Like manipulating the concept of slow to make an opponents speed always be dependant on how you view speed?

i just think the concept types are too deprndant on being close to platonic, in that you can still manipulate a general concept and not affect every single thing in existence that the concept could apply to.

I think even if we added the info or essence stuff it would be the same sort of deal with concepts under a different name.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

First, let me say that concept manipulation doesn't need to be truly universal and, since a concept can apply to only one thing, could also only affect a single thing when changed. What I mean is that it doesn't need to be 3-A or anything. The distinction for something being or not being a concept should be about nature not tier.

Can you explain this again please??
I didn't understand.
From what I see in your explanation population or size of an entity should be irrelevant against determining type of concept.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well wouldn’t type 3 be better reserved for “subjective concepts” that would still abstractly represent general concepts that are modified by a person’s outlook on it? Like manipulating the concept of slow to make an opponents speed always be dependant on how you view speed?

While you could manipulate the concept of slowness to make speed work like that, I don't think the reverse would be true? Like, concept manipulation is one possible mechanism for that effect, but there are other mechanisms for it like Subjective Reality.
If you achieve that effect by manipulating concepts it can just be type 1 or 2, as long as you change the general nature of "slow"/speed itself. If that's not the case it should probably not be listed as concept manipulation.
Or maybe I just don't get what you mean with subjective concepts.

i just think the concept types are too deprndant on being close to platonic, in that you can still manipulate a general concept and not affect every single thing in existence that the concept could apply to.

I think even if we added the info or essence stuff it would be the same sort of deal with concepts under a different name.

I don't really care about plantonism. I barely know the theory anyway. But we obviously can't cater to every way anyone has ever used the word concept. That would dilute the ability into being about what something was named and not about what something is or does.
We have to / already have come up with a definition of our own on what concept manipulation is supposed to be. As a result, what is considered concept manipulation in some piece of fiction is not necessarily concept manipulation for us. The other way around, something not considered concept manipulation in fiction could be concept manipulation for us.
Of course, we can change what is on the concept manipulation page to include and exclude things. We have to think about where it makes sense to draw the lines. What I think I can say with relative certainty, though, is that all types of an ability still need to share a core idea between them. Otherwise, they are just two different abilities. For me, the shared core idea of concept manip is manipulation of an abstract source of properties.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

While you could manipulate the concept of slowness to make speed work like that, I don't think the reverse would be true? Like, concept manipulation is one possible mechanism for that effect, but there are other mechanisms for it like Subjective Reality.
If you achieve that effect by manipulating concepts it can just be type 1 or 2, as long as you change the general nature of "slow"/speed itself. If that's not the case it should probably not be listed as concept manipulation.
Or maybe I just don't get what you mean with subjective concepts.


I don't really care about plantonism. I barely know the theory anyway. But we obviously can't cater to every way anyone has ever used the word concept. That would dilute the ability into being about what something was named and not about what something is or does.
We have to / already have come up with a definition of our own on what concept manipulation is supposed to be. As a result, what is considered concept manipulation in some piece of fiction is not necessarily concept manipulation for us. The other way around, something not considered concept manipulation in fiction could be concept manipulation for us.
Of course, we can change what is on the concept manipulation page to include and exclude things. We have to think about where it makes sense to draw the lines. What I think I can say with relative certainty, though, is that all types of an ability still need to share a core idea between them. Otherwise, they are just two different abilities. For me, the shared core idea of concept manip is manipulation of an abstract source of properties.

Forgive me I am mobile so can’t quote the best.

yeah I agree with that sorta but it still wouldn’t cover concept manip that didn’t change any entity that could be a subset of the concept. Like I change someone’s concept to debase them into a dwarf I am manipualting the concept of human into dwarf, but on a localized level. Obviously not affecting all humans and dwarves (sorry first example I could pick).

Well yeah things can share a common “concept” but have different manifestations. Like the archetype of “spirit” can be a ghost, a soul, a ghoul, a wraith, etc but they are all stemming from a core essence. So manipulating a singular ghost concept still wouldn’t be concept manip due to not affecting every “spirit”?

So if we go through with adding a different type for info manip or add essence manip, what would be the difference. Wouldn’t all 3 still cover the underlying abstract mechanisms for a thing to be attributed certain qualities?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Can you explain this again please??
I didn't understand.
From what I see in your explanation population or size of an entity should be irrelevant against determining type of concept.

Hmmm... maybe a practical example makes it easier to understand.
Take Owari no Chronicle. Maybe Brunhild's first key in particular.
She can, in that key, create a small area around her in which a concept is added to the world that makes it so that if you write something an effect corresponding to what was written happens. A concept in Owari no Chronicle is something more abstract than the laws of physics (two levels more abstracts even...) and is what makes things how they are.
So her writing concept changes the nature and interaction of the things around her, even if at a much lower scale to fully 3-A. (in fact, it is an inferior copy of a low 2-C concept)
It is general, in that it doesn't apply to just one thing but in the small area changes the nature and fundamental rules for all things that needs to be changed for it to have its effect.
Actually, the verse has a metaphor in that there are a parent string vibration, that determines the concept of the world and is in every thing in the world, and additionally each individual has a child string vibration, which determines its individual properties. Brunhilds ability to add the writing concept locally changes the parent string vibration and since all objects participate by having that same parent string vibration they too are altered. Other way around, altering the child string vibration of something wouldn't alter anything, but itself. So adding concept alters parent string vibration and is hence general, even if done on a small scale. Altering just the child string vibration (which is never really done in the verse) would equate to something like property manipulation, in that it only alters a single things nature, but not the nature of things in general.

Does that make sense? I hope giving that example so out of context didn't just make it more confusing...

 

[DontTalkDT]

Forgive me I am mobile so can’t quote the best.

yeah I agree with that sorta but it still wouldn’t cover concept manip that didn’t change any entity that could be a subset of the concept. Like I change someone’s concept to debase them into a dwarf I am manipualting the concept of human into dwarf, but on a localized level. Obviously not affecting all humans and dwarves (sorry first example I could pick).

Well yeah things can share a common “concept” but have different manifestations. Like the archetype of “spirit” can be a ghost, a soul, a ghoul, a wraith, etc but they are all stemming from a core essence. So manipulating a singular ghost concept still wouldn’t be concept manip due to not affecting every “spirit”?

So if we go through with adding a different type for info manip or add essence manip, what would be the difference. Wouldn’t all 3 still cover the underlying abstract mechanisms for a thing to be attributed certain qualities?

What the human dwarf thing is concerned... context matters, I think. Concepts can be on different levels of being general.
A circleness is technically just a special kind of ovalness. And an ovalness is just a specialized concept of having a shape.
So, if you change the concept of dwarf into the concept of human, then all dwarfs in the area where you did so should turn human. However, there could also be a concept of that particular dwarf. Basically, the concept of that dwarf being exactly what he is. A more specialized version of the dwarf concept. Manipulating that would only affect that one specific dwarf (although a perfect truly identical copy of him would in theory also be affected).
Sounds needlessly convoluted, but that's how I usually made sense of showings where someone conceptually erases one single individual if its verse defined concepts as general things.

The question what the actual difference between manipulating a property/essence and manipulating a concept applying to just one thing is is justified. Even if it's a bad practice allow me to answer this question with a question for now: What would you say is the difference between manipulating gravity and manipulating the law of gravitation on a limited scale (e.g. in a solar system sized pocket dimension)?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

What the human dwarf thing is concerned... context matters, I think. Concepts can be on different levels of being general.
A circleness is technically just a special kind of ovalness. And an ovalness is just a specialized concept of having a shape.
So, if you change the concept of dwarf into the concept of human, then all dwarfs in the area where you did so should turn human. However, there could also be a concept of that particular dwarf. Basically, the concept of that dwarf being exactly what he is. A more specialized version of the dwarf concept. Manipulating that would only affect that one specific dwarf (although a perfect truly identical copy of him would in theory also be affected).
Sounds needlessly convoluted, but that's how I usually made sense of showings where someone conceptually erases one single individual if its verse defined concepts as general things.

The question what the actual difference between manipulating a property/essence and manipulating a concept applying to one thing is justified. Even if it's a bad practice allow me to answer this question with a question for now: What would you say is the difference between manipulating gravity and manipulating the law of gravitation on a limited scale (e.g. in a solar system sized pocket dimension)?

Hmmm if that’s the case then we should reword the definitions Imo. Because it seems you are saying affecting a universal concept over a much smaller area of effect would still count as concept manip just localized, where as mist people I have talked to say it can’t be concept manip if the effect is localized.
Well I’d say manipulating gravity Is oretty general. It can range from universal stuff to much more localized stuff like in kingdom hearts but overall I’d still say they are both nuanced versions of gravity manipulation. One being manipulating the force itself and the other manipulating the cause if effect relationships gravity has when interacting with other non gravitational entities.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Hmmm if that’s the case then we should reword the definitions Imo. Because it seems you are saying affecting a universal concept over a much smaller area of effect would still count as concept manip just localized, where as mist people I have talked to say it can’t be concept manip if the effect is localized.

Yeah, I think that the idea behind calling it "universal" was right, but since it's easy to associate it with the tier its an unlucky choice of the formulation. It makes no sense that two abilities that are fundamentally the same would be considered fundamentally different types or abilities just due to tier.
Finding a good formulation to replace it with might be difficult... would need to think about how to put it well.

Well I’d say manipulating gravity Is oretty general. It can range from universal stuff to much more localized stuff like in kingdom hearts but overall I’d still say they are both nuanced versions of gravity manipulation. One being manipulating the force itself and the other manipulating the cause if effect relationships gravity has when interacting with other non gravitational entities.

So, if I get that right, gravity manipulation is manipulating the force itself, while manipulation of the law would be manipulating the cause if effect relationships gravity has when interacting with other non gravitational entities, right? The former would probably earn just gravity manipulation on a profile and the latter would earn (limited) law manipulation or physics manipulation.
I would say the relationship between property/essence manipulation and concept manipulation is similar. One is manipulating the property itself, the other manipulates the way the property has effects on things... in a sense.
Changing the property of a flame to make it cold mean you change the property "being hot" into the property "being cold". Meanwhile, concept manip would take the property "being hot" and let the flame remain hot. Instead, it would make it so that things that are hot behave like being cold.
If inverting gravity is gravity manipulation, but changing the nature of gravity is law manipultion, then inverting a property should be property manipulation, but changing the nature of the property itself would be concept manipulation. That might be a good way to put it.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Yeah, I think that the idea behind calling it "universal" was right, but since it's easy to associate it with the tier its an unlucky choice of the formulation. It makes no sense that two abilities that are fundamentally the same would be considered fundamentally different types or abilities just due to tier.
Finding a good formulation to replace it with might be difficult... would need to think about how to put it well.


So, if I get that right, gravity manipulation is manipulating the force itself, while manipulation of the law would be manipulating the cause if effect relationships gravity has when interacting with other non gravitational entities, right? The former would probably earn just gravity manipulation on a profile and the latter would earn (limited) law manipulation or physics manipulation.
I would say the relationship between property/essence manipulation and concept manipulation is similar. One is manipulating the property itself, the other manipulates the way the property has effects on things... in a sense.
Changing the property of a flame to make it cold mean you change the property "being hot" into the property "being cold". Meanwhile, concept manip would take the property "being hot" and let the flame remain hot. Instead, it would make it so that things that are hot behave like being cold.
If inverting gravity is gravity manipulation, but changing the nature of gravity is law manipultion, then inverting a property should be property manipulation, but changing the nature of the property itself would be concept manipulation. That might be a good way to put it.

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.”

 

[QuasiYuri]

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

 

[Tago238]

Don't feel like looking through the thread rn but to clarify, type 3 is just any concept (no matter the range) that is only a mental object and has no bearing on physical reality since the previous definition had a ridiculously specific definition of this.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT makes excellent sense to me as usual. I am fine with if he wants to create a Property Manipulation page.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

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

The user can manipulate the abstracts (or concept) of data/digital information. This can have many feats, such numerical information pertaining to entities being altered to manifest supernatural transformations, qualitative/quantitative variables that can exhibit unusual characteristics (such as being spiritual rather than digital) and even using data to manipulate physical law and universal concepts.

 

[Orange]

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?
I hope I didn't drail with my comment.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

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?
I hope I didn't drail with my comment.

I think fleshing out the information stuff, and adding more context to the concept types and applications would probably be the best outcome for this thread.

 

[Orange]

I think fleshing out the information stuff, and adding more context to the concept types and applications would probably be the best outcome for this thread.

Yeah I agree more. also this is just my opinion but I also found information being a bit vague. So creating types of information could potentially solve that.
Also, for information manipulation, ig should have two types :Universal and localised. For example, A can manipulate the information of an apple, thus only effecting said apple, and the other Manipulate the internet of 'apple' thus effecting all apples.
that's just my two cents anyway

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Yeah I agree more. also this is just my opinion but I also found information being a bit vague. So creating types of information could potentially solve that.
Also, for information manipulation, ig should have two types :Universal and localised. For example, A can manipulate the information of an apple, thus only effecting said apple, and the other Manipulate the internet of 'apple' thus effecting all apples.
that's just my two cents anyway

Well, the types would cover the scope and essence of the information being discussed. Like physical data being stored on hardware vs. fundamental data of existence which dictates essence. We should add addendums about universal vs local effects.

 

[PrinceofPein]

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

sorry but it does not and you misunderstood the ability. and if this is about jjk it is info manip btw from what i saw

 

[Orange]

Well, the types would cover the scope and essence of the information being discussed. Like physical data being stored on hardware vs. fundamental data of existence which dictates essence. We should add addendums about universal vs local effects.

Hmmm I agree actually. But even if someone can manipulate the fundamental data of existence, they may able to only effect one person or one entity.

I suppose it should be handled in a different thread than this one to not dreail?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Hmmm I agree actually. But even if someone can manipulate the fundamental data of existence, they may able to only effect one person or one entity.

I suppose it should be handled in a different thread than this one to not dreail?

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.