Conceptual Manipulation Clarifications/Revisions

[Antvasima]

What have the staff members who responded to this thread thought so far? A list would be useful.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

What have the staff members who responded to this thread thought so far? A list would be useful.

DonttalkDT
Kingpin0422
Quasiyuri
Everything12
Ogbunabali

 

[Antvasima]

I meant: What have each of their views regarding these issues been?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I meant: What have each of their views regarding these issues been?

I can update when i get back to my cpu

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[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.

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".

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

Generally my preferance, too.

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.

These were the most relevant posts.

Takeaways:

No one really disagreed with giving info manip types, there was just some slight disagreement over what the types should be. Seems most want to keep data and info pages split. So really just a matter of drafting what the types will say.

Type 3 Concept manip either gets elaborated upon, or an "essence" manip would take its place. This is probably the thing that needs to be touched on most by other staff members.

An addendum being added to concept manip in general to divorce from the sentiment that it has to be platonic in application added seems to have full agreement.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Responded above.

 

[Antvasima]

Reading through my old replies, it seems like I agreed about DontTalk's suggestion about creating a Property Manipulation page, but I am not sure if there were valid counters to that idea afterwards.

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

I also seem to have agreed with the contents of the above posts, and thought that Information Manipulation and Data Manipulation should be kept separate, given that one refers to reality, and the other to cyberspace hacking.

Beyond that, this discussion has been extremely hard to keep track of while jumping between many different threads over a prolonged period of time.

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

Would any of you be willing to help this discussion get more organised please? There is also the following post, which quotes several relevant comments.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/conceptual-manipulation-clarifications-revisions.128012/post-4370996

 

[Everything12]

I prefer the name Essence Manipulation to Property Manipulation, as I think essence is a bit more specific an idea then properties.

However, I've got to ask for more clarification of what this Essence/Property Manipulation entails and what problem it is meant to resolve, because reading DonTalk's post I can't help but feel theirs a chance his proposition is designed to solve a problem unrelated to why this Thread is created. A situation that happens on this Wiki with important subjects annoyingly frequent.

 

[Antvasima]

I prefer the name Essence Manipulation to Property Manipulation, as I think essence is a bit more specific an idea then properties.

However, I've got to ask for more clarification of what this Essence/Property Manipulation entails and what problem it is meant to resolve, because reading DonTalk's post I can't help but feel theirs a chance his proposition is designed to solve a problem unrelated to why this Thread is created. A situation that happens on this Wiki with important subjects annoyingly frequent.

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

DontTalk, would you be willing to clarify please?

 

[Promestein]

Why do we need another power...?

 

[Vietthai96]

Why do we need another power...?

Very simple, there are feat of character manipulating the property that made up something, but it not on the scale of reality warping or conceptual alteration, they just well........manipulating something's properties like you change the properties of black hole, make it spit things out rather than eat things, etc.......

 

[Promestein]

Depending on the specifics, wouldn't that just fall under high-level Information Manipulation? Or, you know, Conceptual Manipulation, just not exercised on a vast scale.

Also reality warping can mean anything. That would still be reality warping. What a useless term.

 

[Vietthai96]

Depending on the specifics, wouldn't that just fall under high-level Information Manipulation? Or, you know, Conceptual Manipulation, just not exercised on a vast scale.

Also reality warping can mean anything. That would still be reality warping. What a useless term.

Well, those are the thing i can understand what DontTalkDT want to do, practially manipulating the essences, properties of something. But it could be more

 

[Antvasima]

Well, given what Promestein said, it is probably best if we do not create a Property Manipulation page.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[Promestein]

It's worth discussing more if people have an issue with it.

But I think these issues are more rooted in people's misconceptions regarding Conceptual Manipulation rather than anything else. They immediately slap Platonic onto it; they immediately think in this grand and fundamental scale. Concepts are just ideas, though, and they can be manipulated in a number of ways, both specific and not.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I don't remember this discussion properly anymore, but I do think that there is a massive difference between manipulating the entirety of a concept as a whole, and manipulating it on a small scale individual level.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

It's worth discussing more if people have an issue with it.

But I think these issues are more rooted in people's misconceptions regarding Conceptual Manipulation rather than anything else. They immediately slap Platonic onto it; they immediately think in this grand and fundamental scale. Concepts are just ideas, though, and they can be manipulated in a number of ways, both specific and not.

Yes, a lot of the confusion stems from what. So the question is to axe concept manip 3 and replace it, or keep concept manip type 3 and just expound on it. Either way the addendum you speak of needs to be added for all concept manip.

The other half of the thread is in regards to info manip, most agree it needs more types. We are settling on what types those will be.

 

[Promestein]

Just keep it, I'd say. More powers is just confusing I think.

Alright. I'd imagine two types. Maybe three? Data Manipulation through to your more fundamental information manipulation.

 

[deonment]

It's worth discussing more if people have an issue with it.

But I think these issues are more rooted in people's misconceptions regarding Conceptual Manipulation rather than anything else. They immediately slap Platonic onto it; they immediately think in this grand and fundamental scale. Concepts are just ideas, though, and they can be manipulated in a number of ways, both specific and not.

I mean its less a misunderstanding and more to do with how our system kinda just limits certain things to being relegated to being a lower ontological factor of something's existence when compared to a concept, even though said thing would be as fundamental as a concept is we were to disregard the whole concept focus we have, for example, data in digimon, or the thing that caused this, Jjk Information, both would fall under essence manip but not under our current form of concept manip since they don't mention them being concepts, hell Rukh and True Names from WoD are something we accept to be a concept under our own system even though they don't mention concepts and are far closer to essence manip than they are to concept manip, hell most concepts you could argue to fall under essence manip due to them being the true essence of a thing

 

[Promestein]

Yeah I don't see the point in splitting it rather than defining conceptual manipulation better...?

 

[Duedate8898]

I mean its less a misunderstanding and more to do with how our system kinda just limits certain things to being relegated to being a lower ontological factor of something's existence when compared to a concept, even though said thing would be as fundamental as a concept is we were to disregard the whole concept focus we have, for example, data in digimon, or the thing that caused this, Jjk Information, both would fall under essence manip but not under our current form of concept manip since they don't mention them being concepts, hell Rukh and True Names from WoD are something we accept to be a concept under our own system even though they don't mention concepts and are far closer to essence manip than they are to concept manip, hell most concepts you could argue to fall under essence manip due to them being the true essence of a thing

JJk itself is more in line with Information Manipulation in the first place. It really shouldn't be a part of this discussion, because what's being defined and what people are talking about is outright called information. It was never a problem with concept manipulation as far as I was concerned, just the power being inserted where it doesn't really need to be.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Just keep it, I'd say. More powers is just confusing I think.

Alright. I'd imagine two types. Maybe three? Data Manipulation through to your more fundamental information manipulation.

Yeah nothing about implementation has really been discussed due to mods replies coming in at different times and the discussion sort of lagging. But if we did expound on the concept stuff in general to touch upon what deonment hit on in the above post, what would you suggest be some of the key changes?

Don’t talk doesn’t wish to merge info and data due to separate pages already existing and the split functioning as a difference between stored technical information and more naturalistic/ontological data. So DT wants data to stay put (virtual information) and then have two types for info manip: knowledge based, and ontological (or info that makes up reality).

Myself and Kingpin seemed to agree with digital (whose page would be merged), physical, metaphysical, and ontological. Although I’m fine with either solution.

 

[deonment]

JJk itself is more in line with Information Manipulation in the first place. It really shouldn't be a part of this discussion, because what's being defined and what people are talking about is outright called information. It was never a problem with concept manipulation as far as I was concerned, just the power being inserted where it doesn't really need to be.

I know, I was just mentioning it given that it is an example of something where essence is a better way to define a power than concept manip which has a much more limited scope

 

[deonment]

Yeah I don't see the point in splitting it rather than defining conceptual manipulation better...?

because concepts in the form of thoughts and ideas are a wholly different beast than concepts that are the true essences of things only have a tie in that they are called concepts when compared to smth like information manip which deals with the information and properties of a thing, acausality which is all about non-standard ways that beings exist in relation to cause and effect, or immortality which is about living eternally through different means, each of them shares something relating to their actual function rather than just a name

 

[Promestein]

These things can and often do fall under Concepts; the fundamental idea of something is at once their 'essence' and a concept of them.

 

[deonment]

that isnt what type 3 is however, it is not the fundamental idea of something, it is the collective perception of what the observers believe it to be, it holds no bearing on a thing because it is only what said thing is perceived to be

 

[KingPin0422]

My issue is still that "concepts" by default are simply thoughts, perceptions of what a thing is like, rather than something fundamental to a thing's existence. We say we currently only accept concepts that have at least some bearing on reality to qualify, but then there's type 3, which I'd argue contradicts that rule. It merely seems to just be something we made up to describe concepts that are shaped by collective perception - in other words, it's an extension of idealism, as I see it.

I don't really have any particular solutions in mind right now, but I still needed to get this out there.

 

[Promestein]

Just make the conceptual page less fixated on this universal scale and maybe remove Type 3 or somethng.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Just make the conceptual page less fixated on this universal scale and maybe remove Type 3 or somethng.

What about non universal concepts though? Like removing someone’s name (doug for example) and having them cease to be? Doug i. This case wouldnmt be universal since it’s a subset of humans but would still be a concept embodying a specific individual.

 

[Promestein]

It would depend on the nature of that concept but would still be conceptual manipulation in my ideal world. Personal concepts are still concepts, and if affecting them affects the original, then it's not what we consider Type 3, yes?

 

[Vietthai96]

What about non universal concepts though? Like removing someone’s name (doug for example) and having them cease to be? Doug i. This case wouldnmt be universal since it’s a subset of humans but would still be a concept embodying a specific individual.

To be honest, remove someone name is not actually a concept, but still abstract, it actually fall under abstract manipulation (if we have that ability) and depend on verse if they treat name as something conceptual.

Again, i'm on DontTalkDT side in creating Property or Essence Manipulation or whatever it is, for the record

 

[Dr._whiteee]

It would depend on the nature of that concept but would still be conceptual manipulation in my ideal world. Personal concepts are still concepts, and if affecting them affects the original, then it's not what we consider Type 3, yes?

That’s the question

 

[Dr._whiteee]

To be honest, remove someone name is not actually a concept, but still abstract, it actually fall under abstract manipulation (if we have that ability) and depend on verse if they treat name as something conceptual.

Again, i'm on DontTalkDT side in creating Property or Essence Manipulation or whatever it is, for the record

Yeah it would be though. The concept of a person is still a concept. You orobably have concepts for each person in your life which defines their general nature. The name is just the fancy logo for that. This would also extend to each person’s self-concept.

 

[Promestein]

It's still Conceptual Manipulation, just exercised on a more precise, personal level. I dislike the idea of complicating this by adding another arbitraily defined ability.

 

[Vietthai96]

At this point it is just our personal interpretation of the ability

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Yeah it would be though. The concept of a person is still a concept. You orobably have concepts for each person in your life which defines their general nature. The name is just the fancy logo for that. This would also extend to each person’s self-concept.

Just out of curiosity, why will a name be a concept?
I don’t think name by itself usually involves concepts although that is probably stems from my own views, but in cases like this, I am awfully curious why names should been a concept unto itself when it usually a term to describe a idea or if you want to go a bit further, giving a name to a concept using the logic I using.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Just out of curiosity, why will a name be a concept?
I don’t think name by itself usually involves concepts although that is probably stems from my own views, but in cases like this, I am awfully curious why names should been a concept unto itself when it usually a term to describe a idea or if you want to go a bit further, giving a name to a concept using the logic I using.

The name itself wouldn’t necessarily a concept, the name tied to an individual would be. But since it’s dependent on perception it would only be type 3.

 

[Promestein]

It depends on the specifics. Ichibe, from Bleach - his power alters your name and in doing so affects your properties. That's Conceptual Manipulation.

"At this point it is just our personal interpretation of the ability"

It's always gonna be. I prefer this to making up a power.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

It depends on the specifics. Ichibe, from Bleach - his power alters your name and in doing so affects your properties. That's Conceptual Manipulation.

"At this point it is just our personal interpretation of the ability"

It's always gonna be. I prefer this to making up a power.

Pretty much my thing