-
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
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #82
It's fine. I'm sorry I'm taking a while. I should have a day off on Sunday in which I can get this done in.
- 2,650
- 467
@Kaltias
The problem with that, at least to me, is that making distinctions about that is arbitrary. The very essence of Platonic objects is that they're unbound by any factors that could limit or constrain them, and most notably space and time as concepts. In my opinion, this seems to me like another example of arbitrary limitation to prevent characters from reaching 1-A, even if by mentioning a nature similar to Platonic Forms it is implied to be beyond the concepts of things like space and time. 1-A is already a confusing, arbitrary mess (my opinion) which seems to always require incredibly specific, sometimes contradictory parameters (Almost always it seems to require mentioning a dimensionless void beyond an infinite number of dimensions, even if dimensionality, size, space or time are encompassed or transcended as concepts), even when the Tiering System is very plain about what qualifies for it. "Being unbound by any kind of dimensions".
Thus, if we really want to take that into consideration, I propose we add another Type to account for false Platonism which doesn't match the parameters set forth by Plato. Otherwise, I only see more confusion occurring as a result of this decision.
The problem with that, at least to me, is that making distinctions about that is arbitrary. The very essence of Platonic objects is that they're unbound by any factors that could limit or constrain them, and most notably space and time as concepts. In my opinion, this seems to me like another example of arbitrary limitation to prevent characters from reaching 1-A, even if by mentioning a nature similar to Platonic Forms it is implied to be beyond the concepts of things like space and time. 1-A is already a confusing, arbitrary mess (my opinion) which seems to always require incredibly specific, sometimes contradictory parameters (Almost always it seems to require mentioning a dimensionless void beyond an infinite number of dimensions, even if dimensionality, size, space or time are encompassed or transcended as concepts), even when the Tiering System is very plain about what qualifies for it. "Being unbound by any kind of dimensions".
Thus, if we really want to take that into consideration, I propose we add another Type to account for false Platonism which doesn't match the parameters set forth by Plato. Otherwise, I only see more confusion occurring as a result of this decision.
- 19,123
- 6,335
This wasn't my point. I meant that if the purpose of the page is classifying conceptual manipulation as a power, it's unnecessary to make a distinction between Platonic forms and stuff that is exactly the same but limited by dimensions. It creates two types of conceptual manipulation when the difference is only that one is 1-A in scale while the other isn't.
I 100% agree with adding an explanation about the actual Platonic forms being 1-A, I only meant that in fictions there are Platonic form-like concepts bound by dimensions and we need to take that into account.
I 100% agree with adding an explanation about the actual Platonic forms being 1-A, I only meant that in fictions there are Platonic form-like concepts bound by dimensions and we need to take that into account.
- 2,650
- 467
But my argument is that definitely requires two Types to be made, or else we risk confusion about the actual Platonic Forms not being 1-A, which they most definitely are.
All a distinction would serve to do is produce another Type called False Platonism, which would be a useful indicator in and of itself. I think that's far more convenient than placing notes everywhere which people may or may not read.
Honestly, I can't even think of more than one or two examples where Platonism is ever shown to have dimensional boundaries in fiction, and assuming that it does even if it's not contradicted, as I said, will just make more arbitrary boundaries preventing characters from reaching 1-A.
All a distinction would serve to do is produce another Type called False Platonism, which would be a useful indicator in and of itself. I think that's far more convenient than placing notes everywhere which people may or may not read.
Honestly, I can't even think of more than one or two examples where Platonism is ever shown to have dimensional boundaries in fiction, and assuming that it does even if it's not contradicted, as I said, will just make more arbitrary boundaries preventing characters from reaching 1-A.
- 19,123
- 6,335
Making a "False Platonism" type could also work yes.
I mostly wanted to avoid a case like, say, Darkseid, who is bound by dimensions but is also a platonic form-like abstract being classified in a wrong way only because he isn't 1-A.
Basically I want to make sure that being dimensionless is a requirement only for the actual Platonic forms and not for something to be considered similar in nature (in the sense that it's the same but bound by dimensions)
I mostly wanted to avoid a case like, say, Darkseid, who is bound by dimensions but is also a platonic form-like abstract being classified in a wrong way only because he isn't 1-A.
Basically I want to make sure that being dimensionless is a requirement only for the actual Platonic forms and not for something to be considered similar in nature (in the sense that it's the same but bound by dimensions)
- 2,650
- 467
Yes, but the thing is that Darkseid and those like him should be seen as an exception to Platonism, not a rule. I would argue his "Platonism" by definition cannot truly be Type 1, since that, if it is defined by Platonic objects and ideals, is and should *always* be 1-A due to Platonic objects and concepts transcending all conceptualizations and very specifically space and time dimensionality, as they are undefinable by human language and parlance by the fundamental nature of their existence. Thus, it is my opinion that Type 1 should not have arbitrary boundaries put on it that go against the original meaning. We've made distinctions like this before with our Kardashev scaling as well as Regenerationn, so this should be no different.
And well, that's why I recommended having actual Platonism and false Platonism separate, as the latter by definition cannot actually be Platonic. That, or we can simply completely ignore all cases where beings are said to be Platonic/have Platonic manipulation that are directly contradicted by other characters/feats.
And well, that's why I recommended having actual Platonism and false Platonism separate, as the latter by definition cannot actually be Platonic. That, or we can simply completely ignore all cases where beings are said to be Platonic/have Platonic manipulation that are directly contradicted by other characters/feats.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #90
I am still in support of dividing Platonic forms into two categories, with one "True" and one "False".
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #92
I have written a rough draft of the page as a blog post.
- 168,523
- 77,264
I am not the right person to ask, but it seems mostly fine.
However, you might wish to improve a bit on the structure, so it is easier for laymen to read and understand.
In addition, you used this sentence twice: "For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the form of "circle-ness" "
Also, perhaps you should underline that manipulating lots of people's regular perceptions of a concept via social influence, rather than supernatural means, does not qualify for having the power listed.
However, you might wish to improve a bit on the structure, so it is easier for laymen to read and understand.
In addition, you used this sentence twice: "For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the form of "circle-ness" "
Also, perhaps you should underline that manipulating lots of people's regular perceptions of a concept via social influence, rather than supernatural means, does not qualify for having the power listed.
- 168,523
- 77,264
DarkLK wrote an Umineko explanation blog that he says uses examples of concepts on different levels: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:DarkLK/When_the_Cosmology_Cry
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #96
@Ant
I'm aware I used it twice. The exact same statement applies to both and I didn't want to get overly complicated/wordy for the sake of being different.
I have added a limitation in line with this restriction.
In what way would you recommend the improvement of structure? It currently looks similar to pages of the same nature.
I'm aware I used it twice. The exact same statement applies to both and I didn't want to get overly complicated/wordy for the sake of being different.
I have added a limitation in line with this restriction.
In what way would you recommend the improvement of structure? It currently looks similar to pages of the same nature.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #97
Also I am going to bed for now, so I would like to see what other members have to say about the current page draft.
- 168,523
- 77,264
@Assaltwaffle
1) Okay. No problem, but it may end up as a bit confusing.
2) Thank you.
3) I just meant that you might want to check over the text flow a bit so it reads easier, given that this is a rather complicated topic.
4) Agreed. Good night.
1) Okay. No problem, but it may end up as a bit confusing.
2) Thank you.
3) I just meant that you might want to check over the text flow a bit so it reads easier, given that this is a rather complicated topic.
4) Agreed. Good night.
- 995
- 229
In the spirit of Aeyu's authenticity in regards to platonism I'd go with something like "platonic" and "pseudo-platonic", but other than that seems alright except that I see we don't count the possible use of concept addition as legit concept manip anymore. Maybe that was already explained/addressed somewhere but a tl;dr dumbed down version about it would be nice.
also do we have to specify the listed type everytime like we do with immortality and Regenerationn? (if that is supposed to be out of security of strictly ensuring it meets the requirement of having concept manip)
also do we have to specify the listed type everytime like we do with immortality and Regenerationn? (if that is supposed to be out of security of strictly ensuring it meets the requirement of having concept manip)
- 19,123
- 6,335
@Assalt
It's fine overall, although I wouldn't define embodying a concept as > abstract existence, given that it's the definition of AE (Although that's partially related to another discussion)
@Czer
You mean creating a concept? It counts as conceptual manipulation if you create the abstract idea itself
It's fine overall, although I wouldn't define embodying a concept as > abstract existence, given that it's the definition of AE (Although that's partially related to another discussion)
@Czer
You mean creating a concept? It counts as conceptual manipulation if you create the abstract idea itself
- 10,942
- 12,438
Ok, a few points of criticism:Assaltwaffle said:
- Why is Conceptual Embodiement a higher form of Abstract Existence? Abstract existence is the ability to be a concept and not die as long as it exists. This seems to be conceptual embodiement to me.
- " It should be noted, however, that lower forms of conceptual destruction can be achieved by destroying all objects of the concept. " Given that you later in the article explain how we don't count that as conceptual destruction, I would remove that line. It will just cause trouble with people who don't read the article completely.
- In regards to conceptual creation: "giving the user the ability to alter the fundamental principles that govern reality and the world around them. With this power, one can create the a concept that is unfathomable to the current mind, changing the world to match this new conceptual universal. "
I disagree with that part. Creating a concept doesn't change the world on its own. You need the ability to add objects to that concept or to create a new object that corresponds to the concept in order to make a change to reality. The concept being created makes it possible to do these things, but doing them is a separate issue.
Furthermore creating concepts doesn't allow to alter principles. It only allows to make additions to them. Altering them would require concept alteration.
Aside from these I am still against lesser realism being included (not against it being explained, but against it being included). Just think about how it compares to the other conceptual manipulation in any given situation:
-You create the concept of immortality in a world where it didn't exist yet. it is now...
Lesser Realism: ...possible to think about immortality. It is quite possibly still impossible to be immortal, though.
Other Conceptual Manipulation: ...theoretically possible to actually become immortal, which was priorly impossible.
-Someone shoots a bullet at you and you try to defend yourself by erasing the concept of bullets. You...
Lesser Realism: ...stop recognizing the bullet, but the bullet hits you and you still die.
Other Conceptual Manipulation: ...survive, because the bullet stops existing.
-You are forced to drink poison. You alter the concept of poison to make it not harmful. After drinking it you...
Lesser Realism: ...don't notice that the poison is harmful, but you non the less die.
Other Conceptual Manipulation: ...the poison isn't harmful and you survive.
You would also have to adjust the "Possible Uses", if you include it, given that for example for conceptual destruction the "can not easily be regenerated from"-part wouldn't apply to lesser realism.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #103
Thank you all for evaluations. I will make changes to the page shortly with the advice given.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #105
No problem; I'm always looking to positively influence the Wiki.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #107
I just deleted the Embodiment part, since it seems there were some problems with my understanding how abstract existence related to concept manip. If someone wishes to add it I would be fine with that, but I'd prefer to keep to my area of expertise in the matter.
I removed the line DT requested to be removed, since I do explain it further down.
Changed "alter" it "create" in the creation section.
I think if you can create a concept it goes without saying that you can add the objects of the concept to it, essentially changing the world. I disagree with you on that one.
As for Lesser Realism, what are some of the others' opinions on it? I can scrap it if we really just don't want it in there and instead explain why it doesn't qualify.
I removed the line DT requested to be removed, since I do explain it further down.
Changed "alter" it "create" in the creation section.
I think if you can create a concept it goes without saying that you can add the objects of the concept to it, essentially changing the world. I disagree with you on that one.
As for Lesser Realism, what are some of the others' opinions on it? I can scrap it if we really just don't want it in there and instead explain why it doesn't qualify.
- 2,650
- 467
Sounds good for the most part at first glance @ the blog post, but I would mention that it transcends both spatial and temporal dimensions conceptually instead of just the spatial.
I don't mind having Lesser Realism as a thing, though. Changing people's awareness about concepts is still Concept Manipulation, as you could potentially use it in an extended form to change how people perceive something. (Example: A higher-dimensional being changing the way a lower dimensional being perceives them so that they're easier to understand)
I don't mind having Lesser Realism as a thing, though. Changing people's awareness about concepts is still Concept Manipulation, as you could potentially use it in an extended form to change how people perceive something. (Example: A higher-dimensional being changing the way a lower dimensional being perceives them so that they're easier to understand)
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #109
@Aeyu
You sure that isn't overloading it? I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.
You sure that isn't overloading it? I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #112
Well, if no other edits are to be (I'm adding the temporal dimensions note to Type 1 atm), all that is left is the implement the new page and then address the current concept users and where they stand, which is probably best done in a new thread.
- 168,523
- 77,264
It is probably best to wait for evaluations from the other contributors in this thread about your new version first, just to make sure that we do not do something inappropriate to our general standards.
You can remind them via their message walls if you wish.
You can remind them via their message walls if you wish.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #115
OK. I'll remove the 2nd circle example
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #117
Will do.
Edit: Have done.
Edit: Have done.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #119
I'm guessing we need to assign these new types to the existing Concept manipulators? (aren't that many so it shouldn't be that hard)
Similar threads
