Existence erasure and concepts

[WHYNAUT]

Yep and you also completely ignored our respones to that or purposefully misinterpreted them. The burden of proof is on you, you're the one that needs to proof it's not hyperbolic, but actually talking about concepts as in fundamental parts of reality. After all it's impossible for us to proof anything if you don't give more context. But you have been refusing to do that, which is why this isn't going anywhere.

If a mod sees this, please close this thread.

 

[elhermanopadre]

Some of your previous threads already were based on others hyperbole/figure of speech/callithowyouwant and got refused for pretty much similar reasons.

Your refusal of seeing what's the problem in your arguments doesn't help much either. You can say that you "won" if it helps you to somehow make a better reasonning or whatever tho.

Once more , can you prove why it's "HYPERBOLIC", or that it cannot be work in a fictional world ? if they got refused that doesn't mean it's necessary wrong.

It doesn't matter if it helps, I objectively know that I won, I proved why it cannot be hyperbolic and such. If it can help, that concept is Aristotelian in nature, that very concept is bounded by that person. But the discussions is irrelevant now, it can be close any time of the day , it no longer matters.

Yep and you also completely ignored our respones to that or purposefully misinterpreted them. The burden of proof is on you, you're the one that needs to proof it's not hyperbolic, but actually talking about concepts as in fundamental parts of reality. After all it's impossible for us to proof anything if you don't give more context. But you have been refusing to do that, which is why this isn't going anywhere.

If a mod sees this, please close this thread.

I do not need to prove a claim that I never made, that's wrong, you claimed that it's hyperbolic can you prove that it is? I will not repeat myself, this argument is irrelevant and I proved my points. It can be close I could care less about this argument anymore.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I said it can be, not that it necessary is. I said it need context and you say it doesn't, but bringing context is part of the burden of proof. Also I'm pretty sure "it cannot work in a fictional world" is an argument nobody ever made.

They got refused for all the right reasons. You just said it can't be hyperbolic because "there's the word in" for the "concept of existence" case. By same logic Buuhan is an omnipotent character because he said the word omnipotent and no others.

What proves that it is Aristolean and not type 4 or another one? No context allows to determine this for example, since you didn't bring any.

It's true that the discussion is irrelevant tho, it's not like it was a revision and the questions were answered anyway.

 

[elhermanopadre]

I said it can be, not that it necessary is. I said it need context and you say it doesn't, but bringing context is part of the burden of proof. Also I'm pretty sure "it cannot work in a fictional world" is an argument nobody ever made.

They got refused for all the right reasons. You just said it can't be hyperbolic because "there's the word in" for the "concept of existence" case. By same logic Buuhan is an omnipotent character because he said the word omnipotent and no others.

What proves that it is Aristolean and not type 4 or another one? No context allows to determine this for example, since you didn't bring any.

It's true that the discussion is irrelevant tho, it's not like it was a revision and the questions were answered anyway.

I agree I should have added which type of concept it is but, I do not need to prove a claim that I never said you know that. Well the "it cannot work in a fictional world" well it's an argument I made to debunk people who claim it's an outlier with no proofs or that statement cannot be true or something.

Nop the only logic reason is which type of concept it would be the other reasons were completely wrong and not relevant. I said it's not hyperbolic, because there is no proof of that, there is no indication that it is, the hyperbolic argument is fallacious sometimes.

I agree , the discussion is not relevant, so it being closed at any point doesn't matter.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Except that this argument is basic strawmaning. It doesn't change the lack of context and the possibilities brought up.

Except they aren't. You say they're wrong and irrelevant without proving how they're. A single sentence with no context is considered as not legit until context is given because it can be hyperbole and suchlike, not because it necessary is.
Actually I would even say that people forget a lot about figure of speech being a thing and taking things litteraly way too often.

 

[elhermanopadre]

Except that this argument is basic strawmaning. It doesn't change the lack of context and the possibilities brought up.

Except they aren't. You say they're wrong and irrelevant without proving how they're. A single sentence with no context is considered as not legit until context is given because it can be hyperbole and suchlike, not because it necessary is.
Actually I would even say that people forget a lot about figure of speech being a thing and taking things litteraly way too often.

It will turn into ad nauseam if you and I continue, so I will not do that, and since this thread was answered it better be closed.

 

[Tago238]

Bro imagine saying the concept is more fundamental than the mind or soul, this wiki is filled with platonism stans smh

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Yuri

 

[Tago238]

You know an easy way to get context on this is if anybody remembers the person erased. Their existence being erased would be virtually the same thing since I don’t think people generally think of things which don’t exist living as a thing that exists

 

[elhermanopadre]

You know an easy way to get context on this is if anybody remembers the person erased. Their existence being erased would be virtually the same thing since I don’t think people generally think of things which don’t exist living as a thing that exists

My first replie would honestly debunk those "arguments", but for that conceptual existence erasure, it's Aristotelian in nature so type 3, not type 4, since it's bound by an object or a person in this case not by peoples perceptions. I agree with you on the sec part.

 

[Tago238]

The fact that it's a concepts means, you know, that it's a concept/ idea. Destroying it would therefore impact people's ability to think about the thing of which's concept has been destroyed (to put it without much nuance). The only inherent difference between an aristotelean concept and a type 4 concept, as defined by our current system, would just be that an aristotelean one affects the physical object as well as it is on the same ontological level (again, this is sans nuance but that doesn't matter)

So destroying a type 4 concept= stopping someone from thinking about the object or identifying it in some way
And destroying a type 3 concept= stopping someone from thinking about/ identifying the object as well as destroying the object entirely

I ask again then, in the verse after the concept has been destroyed can anyone think, recall or perform any cognitive operation involving as an object or relating to the character whose concept has been destroyed?

 

[elhermanopadre]

The fact that it's a concepts means, you know, that it's a concept/ idea. Destroying it would therefore impact people's ability to think about the thing of which's concept has been destroyed (to put it without much nuance). The only inherent difference between an aristotelean concept and a type 4 concept, as defined by our current system, would just be that an aristotelean one affects the physical object as well as it is on the same ontological level (again, this is sans nuance but that doesn't matter)

So destroying a type 4 concept= stopping someone from thinking about the object or identifying it in some way
And destroying a type 3 concept= stopping someone from thinking about/ identifying the object as well as destroying the object entirely

I ask again then, in the verse after the concept has been destroyed can anyone think, recall or perform any cognitive operation involving as an object or relating to the character whose concept has been destroyed?

All of this is irrelevant, if you realize in the tiering page (for concept destruction) nothing specify thinking about the object, only in type 4 concepts that it does, that isn't platonic in nature. The conceptual existence of that person is destroyed, that's type 3, it's concept is bounded by that person or object.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I'm pretty sure Rw:Creators has Altair coming back from type 4 conceptual erasure or something like that, so it doesn't prove type 3 iirc.

 

[Tago238]

It is not irrelevant.

What do you think my point is?

 

[Tago238]

@elhermanopadre ?

 

[elhermanopadre]

@elhermanopadre ?

What I'm saying, is that what you said, is true only for type 4 concepts and lower not type 3, and my example has nothing to do with type 4. My example literally describes what erasing someone's existence on a conceptual level is, that is why the nonsense "context", "hyperbolic"," arguments are completely irrelevant and useless since I'm describing with words what destroying someone's concept of existence would be. It's like I'm giving you the definition.

 

[Tago238]

What I'm saying, is that what you said, is true only for type 4 concepts and lower not type 3, and my example has nothing to do with type 4. My example literally describes what erasing someone's existence on a conceptual level is, that is why the nonsense "context", "hyperbolic"," arguments are completely irrelevant and useless since I'm describing with words what destroying someone's concept of existence would be.

Bruh

I asked you what you thought my previous comment here:

The fact that it's a concepts means, you know, that it's a concept/ idea. Destroying it would therefore impact people's ability to think about the thing of which's concept has been destroyed (to put it without much nuance). The only inherent difference between an aristotelean concept and a type 4 concept, as defined by our current system, would just be that an aristotelean one affects the physical object as well as it is on the same ontological level (again, this is sans nuance but that doesn't matter)

So destroying a type 4 concept= stopping someone from thinking about the object or identifying it in some way
And destroying a type 3 concept= stopping someone from thinking about/ identifying the object as well as destroying the object entirely

I ask again then, in the verse after the concept has been destroyed can anyone think, recall or perform any cognitive operation involving as an object or relating to the character whose concept has been destroyed?

Was supposed to be about. I did not ask you for what you are saying, I'm asking what you thought MY argument was, which you probably should have been able to tell from the fact that I said exactly that.

 

[QuasiYuri]

You're describing your interpretation of what it would be. Which so far wasn't shown to be especially more reliable than any others.

Altair is an example of character having their existence erased/absorbed on a conceptual level and not being type 3.

 

[elhermanopadre]

Bruh

I asked you what you thought my previous comment here:

Was supposed to be about. I did not ask you for what you are saying, I'm asking what you thought MY argument was, which you probably should have been able to tell from the fact that I said exactly that.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood your comment, but I said in one of my comments that I agree to it somewhat.

You're describing your interpretation of what it would be. Which so far wasn't shown to be especially more reliable than any others.

Altair is an example of character having their existence erased/absorbed on a conceptual level and not being type 3.

I'm not interpretation, it's literally in the page for existence erase, someone's concept of existence which was literally in my first comment.

"Powerful enough uses of this ability can even erase the mind and soul, if not more fundamental aspects of one's existence, such as concepts"

I'm literally giving you the general description of destroying someone's concept of existence, and accord to the page it's type 3, it has nothing to do with type 4 and the example you have doesn't disprove anything, it would simply be type 3 or counting for exceptions. Just because you think it isn't type 3 doesn't mean it isn't, I already debunked that, so going further is pointless and would turn into ad nauseam.

 

[Tago238]

@elhermanopadre

Just answer my question already

 

[elhermanopadre]

@elhermanopadre

Just answer my question already

I said that I agree somewhat, two times, or is it the end of the long comment ?

"I ask again then, in the verse after the concept has been destroyed can anyone think, recall or perform any cognitive operation involving as an object or relating to the character whose concept has been destroyed?"

I pretty much answered it two times already , what I gave is a general example of what existence erase on a conceptual level is , and the type is 3 in nature not bounded why peoples thoughts, what you asked is only for type 4.

 

[Tago238]

AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I don't care if you agree with something that was a patronising assertion in case a dumb distinction was made ("Their existence being erased would be virtually the same thing since I don’t think people generally think of things which don’t exist living as a thing that exists", that was the second part you said you agreed with) when the actual point of my argument was disagreed with for reasons that were not a response to the actual point I made. You seem to think I was saying it was type 4 destruction instead of type 3 (which it could be tbf) when I hadn't made any conclusions on that. I will explain what I actually meant when you say what you thought this comment

The fact that it's a concepts means, you know, that it's a concept/ idea. Destroying it would therefore impact people's ability to think about the thing of which's concept has been destroyed (to put it without much nuance). The only inherent difference between an Aristotelian concept and a type 4 concept, as defined by our current system, would just be that an Aristotelian one affects the physical object as well as it is on the same ontological level (again, this is sans nuance but that doesn't matter)

So destroying a type 4 concept= stopping someone from thinking about the object or identifying it in some way
And destroying a type 3 concept= stopping someone from thinking about/ identifying the object as well as destroying the object entirely

I ask again then, in the verse after the concept has been destroyed can anyone think, recall or perform any cognitive operation involving as an object or relating to the character whose concept has been destroyed?

was saying.

I literally cannot be any clearer than this.

 

[elhermanopadre]

If I couldn't answer it's because I was already busy with work and studies.

 

[elhermanopadre]

AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I don't care if you agree with something that was a patronising assertion in case a dumb distinction was made ("Their existence being erased would be virtually the same thing since I don’t think people generally think of things which don’t exist living as a thing that exists", that was the second part you said you agreed with) when the actual point of my argument was disagreed with for reasons that were not a response to the actual point I made. You seem to think I was saying it was type 4 destruction instead of type 3 (which it could be tbf) when I hadn't made any conclusions on that. I will explain what I actually meant when you say what you thought this comment

was saying.

I literally cannot be any clearer than this.

And you comment was asking me about them thinking about a concept that was destroyed , which I said , no , they aren't based on their thoughs and only that persons concept of existence was erase. I also added that this was only a general example of what erasing someone's concept of existence would be.
I only agreed when you talked about the types (somewhat), just erasing their existence could simply mean on an astral plane , not conceptually, like their body , soul.

 

[Tago238]

They aren’t thinking about the concept which is destroyed, they are thinking about the object of which’s concept has been destroyed. If they can then it wouldn’t be conceptual manipulation as while, sure, type 4 concepts are bound to perception (the use of the word perception is limiting but whatever) and type 3 concepts are bound to the object both would affect the ability to think about the object the concept represents. Ergo if characters could engage in any cognition relating to the erased being it shouldn’t be conceptual manipulation. On the other hand, of it‘s outright stated that people can’t think about he being who has been erased no matter how hard they try then it should totally be conceptual manipulation.

Although I guess that still leaves it up to interpretation whether or not it’s a type 3 concept being destroyed or if it’s the body being destroyed with the type 4 concept. I’d say based on how we treat other verses it should be assumed to be type 3.

 

[elhermanopadre]

They aren’t thinking about the concept which is destroyed, they are thinking about the object of which’s concept has been destroyed. If they can then it wouldn’t be conceptual manipulation as while, sure, type 4 concepts are bound to perception (the use of the word perception is limiting but whatever) and type 3 concepts are bound to the object both would affect the ability to think about the object the concept represents. Ergo if characters could engage in any cognition relating to the erased being it shouldn’t be conceptual manipulation. On the other hand, of it‘s outright stated that people can’t think about he being who has been erased no matter how hard they try then it should totally be conceptual manipulation.

Although I guess that still leaves it up to interpretation whether or not it’s a type 3 concept being destroyed or if it’s the body being destroyed with the type 4 concept. I’d say based on how we treat other verses it should be assumed to be type 3.

I already debunked and addressed your point, this is turning to ad nauseam and this thread should have been close.