- 2,255
- 388
Okay why are Maxwell and a bunch of Touhou characters (most notably Junko) and faaaar more given conceptual manipulation?
Now I know you might answer with “well they are changing the abstract, formalised nature of something, changing the physical itself in the process and ergo falling under the definition of type 3, 2 or 1 concepts“ and to that I say **** you. Concepts are fundamentally defined by a relation to realms of thought, at their core they are ideas (as in basically any dictionary you find will state them to be something along the lines of “an abstract idea”. More complex analyses of the word philosophically, most notably the Stanford dictionary of philosophy here [https://plato.stanford.edu/], are all based around the logic of them being the root of understanding, imaging and such related- even stating that the most important nature of the conversation concerns their relationship to the mind, be them two separate objects at all- or be them a phenomena definitionally not categorised as object). Why is this relevant you ask? Well it’s because none of these characters edit things inherent to the functioning cognition and so it begs the question as to why these feats aren’t described as Information Manipulation which is generally a power used when talking about the editing of some formalised iteration of a physical object through spontaneous logical operators within it (take funny JoJo author avatar man, for instance). I mean, isn’t semantics or the general addition of adverbs as much of a formalism as the contents of a manuscript?
Look I’m tired and irate, debate me or something now.
Now I know you might answer with “well they are changing the abstract, formalised nature of something, changing the physical itself in the process and ergo falling under the definition of type 3, 2 or 1 concepts“ and to that I say **** you. Concepts are fundamentally defined by a relation to realms of thought, at their core they are ideas (as in basically any dictionary you find will state them to be something along the lines of “an abstract idea”. More complex analyses of the word philosophically, most notably the Stanford dictionary of philosophy here [https://plato.stanford.edu/], are all based around the logic of them being the root of understanding, imaging and such related- even stating that the most important nature of the conversation concerns their relationship to the mind, be them two separate objects at all- or be them a phenomena definitionally not categorised as object). Why is this relevant you ask? Well it’s because none of these characters edit things inherent to the functioning cognition and so it begs the question as to why these feats aren’t described as Information Manipulation which is generally a power used when talking about the editing of some formalised iteration of a physical object through spontaneous logical operators within it (take funny JoJo author avatar man, for instance). I mean, isn’t semantics or the general addition of adverbs as much of a formalism as the contents of a manuscript?
Look I’m tired and irate, debate me or something now.
Last edited: