- 15,332
- 7,559
Obviously not. It's a normal instance of case-by-case analysis.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Conceptual Manipulation: Not all Concepts are Created (or destroyed) Equal
- Thread starter Assaltwaffle
- Start date
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #42
I'm fine with cutting nominalism and idealism, but I feel like they should be mentioned in the page specifically stating they aren't concept manip in the way we use them. That way we don't have people crying "concept manip" if someone is able to "change your entire concept of pain".
I do, however, feel that Lesser Realism and Aristotelian Realism should stick, as they are still abstract conceptual forms. The Pokemon characters use Aristotelian Concept manip, for example.
Also, for the Wiki's sake, I would be OK with making a distinction between two types of Platonic Realism: One that uses some kind of transcendent and independent form that is localized and restricted and another that uses an utterly all-encompassing Platonic form that is true to the original idea.
When it comes to making this easier to understand, I can probably write some easier examples and show how it would work for characters in fiction.
I do, however, feel that Lesser Realism and Aristotelian Realism should stick, as they are still abstract conceptual forms. The Pokemon characters use Aristotelian Concept manip, for example.
Also, for the Wiki's sake, I would be OK with making a distinction between two types of Platonic Realism: One that uses some kind of transcendent and independent form that is localized and restricted and another that uses an utterly all-encompassing Platonic form that is true to the original idea.
When it comes to making this easier to understand, I can probably write some easier examples and show how it would work for characters in fiction.
- 165,111
- 72,024
I also strongly agree with Matthew about that it is dangerous for our system to start slapping 1-A on any characters that are referred to as Platonic ideals, even if their established power levels are far more limited in scale.
We currently have that problem in another thread with members who keep insisting on a 1-A Darkseid based on such a reference in a Grant Morrison interview.
We currently have that problem in another thread with members who keep insisting on a 1-A Darkseid based on such a reference in a Grant Morrison interview.
- 10,500
- 11,568
*Insert expression of agreement here*Assaltwaffle said:
- 32,327
- 20,206
This is actually false, they are reffered to in such terms a lot in actual comics.Antvasima said:
- 15,332
- 7,559
Nobody here is trying to slap on 1-A on every character referred to as a Platonic Universal. It's very obvious that most characters who receive such a denomination are "absolute" within their own planes, which is why the analogy is used. That doesn't make them 1-A, it's just a fancy hyperbole.
No, we're talking about characters who have their ratings actually explained in-depth.
No, we're talking about characters who have their ratings actually explained in-depth.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #47
@Ant
Dividing the Platonic concepts into a lesser and true version of it would solve this. Unless proven to be absolutely all-encompassing and totally transcendent, we would assume them not to be True Platonic Forms.
Dividing the Platonic concepts into a lesser and true version of it would solve this. Unless proven to be absolutely all-encompassing and totally transcendent, we would assume them not to be True Platonic Forms.
- 15,332
- 7,559
I believe we should include Nominalism and Lesser Realism on the profiles as an example of universals that do not actually fit our definition of Concept Manip. In that case, I agree with Assalt.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #52
@Kep
I think Lesser Realism still does count. It isn't just an idea, but rather a literal abstract. It is just that affecting it is not as impressive as affecting one of the higher abstracts.
But I do still agree with listing Nominalism in the new description as one that doesn't work.
I think Lesser Realism still does count. It isn't just an idea, but rather a literal abstract. It is just that affecting it is not as impressive as affecting one of the higher abstracts.
But I do still agree with listing Nominalism in the new description as one that doesn't work.
- 15,332
- 7,559
It depends.
For example, a powerful Mind Manipulator would be somewhat equal to a Concept Manipulator in a verse where universals are defined via Lesser Realism.
For example, a powerful Mind Manipulator would be somewhat equal to a Concept Manipulator in a verse where universals are defined via Lesser Realism.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #54
@Kep
I mean they would still need to change how they view they abstract concept. It would have to be some uber potent mind manip to pull that off.
If we dismissed powers if they overlap with others, Information and Law manip would both conflict hard.
I mean they would still need to change how they view they abstract concept. It would have to be some uber potent mind manip to pull that off.
If we dismissed powers if they overlap with others, Information and Law manip would both conflict hard.
- 10,500
- 11,568
I would honestly prefer to keep lesser realism out of it and by that keep it to concept manipulation that changes how things are, instead of just how they appear to be. That way concept manipulation isn't split in two completely different kinds of abilities.
Manipulation of concepts in lesser realism seems better listed as a powerful subtype of mind manipulation. (Which reminds me that I should probably change the link on aleisters archetype manipulation if I get the chance)
Manipulation of concepts in lesser realism seems better listed as a powerful subtype of mind manipulation. (Which reminds me that I should probably change the link on aleisters archetype manipulation if I get the chance)
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #56
Kingpi has brought up a current issue with our current page: "Only High 1-A or above characters can be assumed to completely manipulate all concepts."
This is wrong and outdated. If we're going by "all concepts" to mean "all True Platonic Concepts" this doesn't work, since the Form of the Good is basically a Tier 0. All others are only 1-A, and if using any other level of Concept, this just doesn't hold true at all.
This is wrong and outdated. If we're going by "all concepts" to mean "all True Platonic Concepts" this doesn't work, since the Form of the Good is basically a Tier 0. All others are only 1-A, and if using any other level of Concept, this just doesn't hold true at all.
- 8,678
- 5,554
Elaborating with the different varieties and nature of conceptual manipulation is a good idea, but we do need to keep things comprehensible. If anything we should at least list concepts in lesser realism to just address their existence.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #58
@DontTalk
I think there is a difference between being able to manipulate the literal abstract conceptual framework of an object's place in reality and being able to manipulate a group's perception of that concept, and the former should still qualify, since if the universe is running off of a "reality is what you make of it" notion this would essentially change reality for all intents and purposes.
It is absolutely case-by-case, but I still think manipulating an abstract conceptual framework would qualify. If everyone disagrees with me on this, however, I'll concede it.
I think there is a difference between being able to manipulate the literal abstract conceptual framework of an object's place in reality and being able to manipulate a group's perception of that concept, and the former should still qualify, since if the universe is running off of a "reality is what you make of it" notion this would essentially change reality for all intents and purposes.
It is absolutely case-by-case, but I still think manipulating an abstract conceptual framework would qualify. If everyone disagrees with me on this, however, I'll concede it.
- 8,678
- 5,554
I also absolutely agree with this.Assaltwaffle said:
- 2,650
- 466
@Assalt
Concepts, no. Logic and mathematics, yes, in regard to High 1-A, as logic is the basis of conceptualization, and hierarchies ("meta" doesn't change any of this) are within this framework.
Anyway, I don't see the need to have arbitrary divisions. If something does not demonstrate actual Platonism, it should not be considered Platonic, and truly Platonic things are always 1-A. Hence, why I said unless there is a direct contradiction in the work. There does not need to be so many arbitrary restrictions.
Concepts, no. Logic and mathematics, yes, in regard to High 1-A, as logic is the basis of conceptualization, and hierarchies ("meta" doesn't change any of this) are within this framework.
Anyway, I don't see the need to have arbitrary divisions. If something does not demonstrate actual Platonism, it should not be considered Platonic, and truly Platonic things are always 1-A. Hence, why I said unless there is a direct contradiction in the work. There does not need to be so many arbitrary restrictions.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #61
@Aeyu
I gotta disagree for the above reasons. Slapping 1-A hax on things that don't explicitly describe utterly transcendent and all-encompassing concepts seems like a pretty bad idea.
I gotta disagree for the above reasons. Slapping 1-A hax on things that don't explicitly describe utterly transcendent and all-encompassing concepts seems like a pretty bad idea.
- 8,678
- 5,554
Well, that's what Aeyu is saying. We shouldn't give 1-A to anything Platonic unless it demonstrates actual 1-A transduality.
- 2,650
- 466
But that's another example of arbitrariness in regard to 1-A. It's kind of irritating that that tier is clouded by all sorts of arbitrary qualifications which aren't part of what actually qualifies for 1-A, that being:
"Characters with no dimensional restrictions/limitations"
Truly Platonic beings would very much fall in line with 1-A and manipulating Platonic concepts is very much a 1-A feat. What I am saying is that we should assume all Platonism is 1-A, and anything that contradicts this baseline should be ignored and relegated to a lower level.
"Characters with no dimensional restrictions/limitations"
Truly Platonic beings would very much fall in line with 1-A and manipulating Platonic concepts is very much a 1-A feat. What I am saying is that we should assume all Platonism is 1-A, and anything that contradicts this baseline should be ignored and relegated to a lower level.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #64
This isn't the time to discuss how this effects verses, rather this thread is to discuss the standards and page itself.
You're welcome to start a new thread after this one or reply to a subsequent that will evaluate our current concep users and where they stand in any new system.
You're welcome to start a new thread after this one or reply to a subsequent that will evaluate our current concep users and where they stand in any new system.
- 165,111
- 72,024
I agree with DontTalk about that manipulating people's perception about concepts seems more appropriate for the mind manipulation ability, or even just absolutely massive real world style social influence.
I also still think that slapping 1-A on any characters that have the words "platonic concepts" mentioned in conjunction would severely mess up our tiering system and lead to 1-A inflation, unless it was clarified that what is intended is that they transcend all degrees of the concepts of space and time, or similar.
I also still think that slapping 1-A on any characters that have the words "platonic concepts" mentioned in conjunction would severely mess up our tiering system and lead to 1-A inflation, unless it was clarified that what is intended is that they transcend all degrees of the concepts of space and time, or similar.
- 8,678
- 5,554
"I agree with DontTalk about that manipulating people's perception about concepts seems more appropriate for the mind manipulation ability, or even just absolutely massive real world style social influence."
It really does depend on the world, as in some settings it's very possible that manipulating someone's own personal concepts and perception of the world can warp reality, in these worlds where reality is subjective and formed by the perceptions of others.
"I also still think that slapping 1-A on any characters that have the words "platonic concepts""
Nobody is suggesting that.
It really does depend on the world, as in some settings it's very possible that manipulating someone's own personal concepts and perception of the world can warp reality, in these worlds where reality is subjective and formed by the perceptions of others.
"I also still think that slapping 1-A on any characters that have the words "platonic concepts""
Nobody is suggesting that.
- 2,650
- 466
@Ant
Given the relative rarity of mention in regard to Platonic universals/realism within fiction, I was advising ignoring anything "Platonic", that doesn't qualify for what Platonics would be, that is to say 1-A. (For the reasons I have outlined above, tl;dr they conceptually transcend all notions or applications of space or time dimensions by their inherent nature)
If a character contradicts this application of Platonics by a statement/feat/etc which implies them to be restricted to a particular dimensional level, for instance, then their ability to affect concepts or their own fundamental nature cannot, by definition, be Platonic, except in name, which is irrelevant to our classification scheme. That's all I've been trying to say. Perhaps a better way to say it is that characters should not logically have Type 1 unless they are at the least 1-A or able to affect 1-A structures.
Finally, I think that all arguments of Platonicism should be considered valid in trying to determine 1-A, but only if they are not directly contradicted by other statements/feats (Like the Darkseid thing).
Given the relative rarity of mention in regard to Platonic universals/realism within fiction, I was advising ignoring anything "Platonic", that doesn't qualify for what Platonics would be, that is to say 1-A. (For the reasons I have outlined above, tl;dr they conceptually transcend all notions or applications of space or time dimensions by their inherent nature)
If a character contradicts this application of Platonics by a statement/feat/etc which implies them to be restricted to a particular dimensional level, for instance, then their ability to affect concepts or their own fundamental nature cannot, by definition, be Platonic, except in name, which is irrelevant to our classification scheme. That's all I've been trying to say. Perhaps a better way to say it is that characters should not logically have Type 1 unless they are at the least 1-A or able to affect 1-A structures.
Finally, I think that all arguments of Platonicism should be considered valid in trying to determine 1-A, but only if they are not directly contradicted by other statements/feats (Like the Darkseid thing).
- 1,096
- 94
There is no static correspondent for conceptual attributes in space-time in which are assigned, from the aspects of "metaphysics", one have to consider there is no bound to what is and what is not, always is there potential for more principles that of which mortals can or not conceive. This "subjective" intuition could for example be explained with the Star Maker.Promestein said:
Type 4: Idealism
| In other creations, though there was indeed a physical aspect, there was nothing corresponding to the familiar systematic physical universe. The physical experience of the beings was wholly determined by their mutual impact on one another. Each flooded its fellows with sensory "images," the quality and sequence of which were determined according to psychological laws of the impact of mind on mind |
| First he conceived from the depth of his own being a something, neither mind nor matter, but rich in potentiality, and in suggestive traits, gleams, hints for his creative imagination. Over this fine substance for a long while he pondered. It was a medium in which the one and the many demanded to be most subtly dependent upon one another; in which all parts and all characters must pervade and be pervaded by all other parts and all other characters; in which each thing must seemingly be but an influence in all other things; and yet the whole must be no other than the sum of all its parts, and each part an all-pervading determination of the whole. It was a cosmically substance in which any individual spirit must be, mysteriously, at once an absolute self and a mere figment of the whole. |
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #71
Hopefully this still gets attention after the thread following bug.
I also want to clarify something that I think most of y'all know, but still needs to be said: Having any concept hax does not make your other hax that aren't related to the object of said concept stronger. For example, having concept manipulation of darkness does not make your mind hax stronger.
I also want to clarify something that I think most of y'all know, but still needs to be said: Having any concept hax does not make your other hax that aren't related to the object of said concept stronger. For example, having concept manipulation of darkness does not make your mind hax stronger.
- 19,117
- 6,333
I think that the "types" of conceptual manipulation should be the first three, although the other two should probably be explained, this way people can understand better why they don't qualify as conceptual manipulation.
Also regarding the bit about Plato's forms:
While it's true that the Platonic Forms are 1-A, their equivalents in fiction aren't necessarily on this level.
You can manipulate a type 1 concept on a Low 2-C scale, High 2-A, 1-C, the one that you prefer.
A concept that's bound by dimensions but is still completely unaffected by everything excluding conceptual stuff is a lesser version of Plato's forms.
If you obliterated Earth, the Aristotelian concept of "humanity" would be gone. The Platonic one would stay.
Saying that a concept can't be akin to Plato's forms if it's not 1-A doesn't work.
Just explain it on the profile, Plato's forms are 1-A, type 1 concepts aren't necessarily 1-A, even if they are similar under certain aspects.
Also regarding the bit about Plato's forms:
While it's true that the Platonic Forms are 1-A, their equivalents in fiction aren't necessarily on this level.
You can manipulate a type 1 concept on a Low 2-C scale, High 2-A, 1-C, the one that you prefer.
A concept that's bound by dimensions but is still completely unaffected by everything excluding conceptual stuff is a lesser version of Plato's forms.
If you obliterated Earth, the Aristotelian concept of "humanity" would be gone. The Platonic one would stay.
Saying that a concept can't be akin to Plato's forms if it's not 1-A doesn't work.
Just explain it on the profile, Plato's forms are 1-A, type 1 concepts aren't necessarily 1-A, even if they are similar under certain aspects.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #75
OK, I will write up a draft for a new page using the original page and what was discussed here.
- 19,117
- 6,333
Lesser Realism is a bit complicated.
You are manipulating something abstract and it does affect reality.
Although it's more like changing the perception that everyone has of something, without actually manipulating their mind.
You can't alter an object on a conceptual level to reshape it.
One thing for sure, if we accept it as conceptual manipulation we need to note that it isn't valid if you are simply mind haxing a bunch of people.
You are manipulating something abstract and it does affect reality.
Although it's more like changing the perception that everyone has of something, without actually manipulating their mind.
You can't alter an object on a conceptual level to reshape it.
One thing for sure, if we accept it as conceptual manipulation we need to note that it isn't valid if you are simply mind haxing a bunch of people.
- 8,438
- 3,292
- Thread starter
- #77
@Kaltias
I mean concept manip of higher levels can be achieved through other means. Just identifying it as Type 3 should serve to show its inferiority to the higher concept types.
I mean concept manip of higher levels can be achieved through other means. Just identifying it as Type 3 should serve to show its inferiority to the higher concept types.
Similar threads
