Improving the Concept Manipulation Type 3 Formulation

[DontTalkDT]

The definition of concept manipulation type 3 is, in my opinion, a little vague.
Part of the reason for that is that it essentially defines Type 3 concepts as abstract mental things.
Problem is, to quote from a dictionary, abstract means "existing as an idea, feeling, or quality, not as a material object".
As such it is unclear, without further explanation, what the difference between some part of the mind (like an idea or feeling) and a type 3 concept is. Or, in other words, in which fashion the concept is supposed to be abstract. I suspect we can agree that an idea or feeling, which most people with mind manipulation could manipulate, should in general not be considered a concept.
What I would suggest for clarification is that a type 3 concept is not something fundamentally mental in nature, but exists outside of the mind and merely affects the mind of everyone.
In that regard, I would personally not say that they are "mental objects" like the current definition does and hence remove that formulation.

Furthermore, while the necessity of a concept being 'universal' is mentioned at the top of the page, I think it should be mentioned more explicitly for Type 3 again. I think it is very important for that type to keep it in mind.
So I would suggest updating the description to the following:

Such concepts are abstract, but do not govern reality. Instead, these concepts are only related (in variable manner) to mental faculties such as cognition and the senses. They are not part of the mind, but govern the properties or functioning of the mind of all sentient life that "participates" in them, which typically is all within the domain the concept affects. From this definition, they can be of almost any model so long as they are relevant to human thought and comprehension. However, these concepts are still truly abstract, and manipulating the abstract concept itself is still conceptual manipulation. Similarly to Type 2, this type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, affecting the mind could also affect the concepts responsible for its function (though this is not universal), however this would not qualify as the concepts need to be affected directly.

Beyond that, I would want to discuss where exactly we wish to draw the line between this and information manipulation. One could argue that manipulating information in itself, and by that changing the knowledge of everyone, would qualify under the current definition of conceptual manipulation type 3. The White Queen's information erasure for instance makes everyone forget the information she erased.
I would argue by the current definition of Type 3 this would qualify for concept manipulation Type 3, but should it? Personally, I think that information = concept sounds wrong, but it might be hard to separate them. Any opinions and ideas regarding that?

 

[Everything12]

Pretty sure the Type also counts Concepts that govern reality that are shaped by the mind, you know Concepts altered by the Collective Unconscious Type stuff, like Warhammer.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Pretty sure the Type also counts Concepts that govern reality that are shaped by the mind, you know Concepts altered by the Collective Unconscious Type stuff, like Warhammer.

Don't know what you mean actually.
But considering that the first sentence of Type 3 currently is

Such concepts are abstract, but do not govern reality.

I'm a little sceptical about that.

 

[DontTalkDT]

bump

 

[QuasiYuri]

I think it is basically for these concepts who just apply to one thing in particular. Like a sword which is the concept of swords or whatever.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think it is basically for these concepts who just apply to one thing in particular. Like a sword which is the concept of swords or whatever.

Ehhh... I don't understand. What is "it" in this context or more generally which point of this thread are you replying to?

 

[QuasiYuri]

Ehhh... I don't understand. What is "it" in this context or more generally which point of this thread are you replying to?

It being type 3 concept.
Like they are small scale isolated concept if that makes sense.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It being type 3 concept.
Like they are small scale isolated concept if that makes sense.

I don't think that's the case then. The current definition of them includes:

Such concepts are abstract, but do not govern reality. Instead, these concepts are only related (in variable manner) to mental faculties such as cognition and the senses.

Basically, they are supposed to be generalizations of the mental representation of something. Or in other words, they are the shared fundamental understanding of what something is. Like humanities shared understanding of what trees are could be a type 3 concept. Changing that wouldn't change what trees actually are, but what people think trees are.

 

[DontTalkDT]

bump

 

[DontTalkDT]

bump

 

[QuasiYuri]

Well, in that case I have a proposition for a better type 3, but I'll need some minutes to explain why I think it would be so.

 

[Tago238]

I disagree with the change as the person who revised type 3 concepts but I'm feeling fairly depressed atm so I'll explain myself later probably.

 

[Arkenis]

Just for my sake, what concept type manip is manipulating one’s name?

 

[QuasiYuri]

So I think type 3 should be "small scale concepts", with reasons for the current one to be changed and reasons for why it should be changed like that.

I think it should be changed because:

-Concepts being influenced by the mind can apply to a lot of type 2. There's verses like Persona when universal concepts are linked to the Collective Unconscious, for instance (the verse should really lose their "type 1 and 3" to become type 2 btw).

-Besides the very first sentence, it isn't really that conceptual. It's basically the same thing as what DonttalkDT said, but without the change of being "affecting the mind", since it wasn't really the point of the description.



And I think it should be turned into (and maybe renamed as) "Small Scale concepts" because:

-We have no qualifications for concepts which only apply on a very limited scale instead of a universal one, and aren't linked to all the objects linked to it.

While current type 3 is supposed to fits this, a lot of said concepts don't fall into it (Ichibe's ink and some others kudodama stuff) because they don't have this mental thing, despite not being proven to be universal in scale and clearly applying to a specific object/individual/etc...
Or you have pages who just have no types because they don't fall under the ones we have, such as Medea's.

-One of the attributs would be that if said concept gets destroyed, it doesn't destroy the objects linked to it. Think of all these weapons, attacks, characters with the concept of victory, shield, unbreakability, etc... into them, whose destruction doesn't affect anything outside of themselves.

-However, said concepts are still subject to change from the reality in return. Just like type 2, if there's no shield in the world, the concept of a shield doesn't exist anymore. They also are subjects to change from a higher scale version of said concept, just like an object would.

-It would include a lot of things you usually would have troubled to qualify. All those vague statements regarding "attacking on a conceptual level", "using a weapon with the concept of piercing/unbreakability/slashing/etc...", "destroying someone's concept" or "altering the name/identity of x to turn them into x" and all you can think that is similar would fall under it.
Unless there's stuff proving another type of course.



Overall, that's a win in every way, with virtually no loss.

It doesn't even require big changes to pages or anything, since most type 3 usually qualify for it (mainly because of the first sentence of the current description), and others just lack any kind of types, which would just have them being updated overtime like any pages lacking a precision on what type they are.

 

[Everything12]

For the longest time I've had a problem with the Wiki equating the Concepts of individuals or Conceptual attacks/attacks that damage the Concept of a individual to the Concepts that govern the Universe with. They just never felt like they should be equated, they always felt too small in scope even if they were Abstract ideas that governed something to truly be equal. So if you are proposing a new Type for this you have my 100% agreement.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Alright, sooo uhhh... this thread quickly went off the rails. I just wanted to better distinguish between mental concepts, mind related stuff that isn't a concept and information stuff.
I don't really have anything against mental concepts in and of itself. A concept as the universal mental generalization of an object can make sense as a type and IIRC that is what the type was originally intended to be. For example, changing the type 3 concept of a tree would change what everyone believes a tree is in general.
All we need to do is just to separate it from other things better.

Soooo... idk. When it comes to ideas for adding new concept types perhaps a proposal in a separate thread would be better suited for it? I'm just trying to fix what we currently have and if we start talking about adding new types at the same time things will just turn... chaotic.

I suppose what would be on-topic is to talk about whether type 3 in its current form should be deleted instead of fixed. If that is decided we can talk about replacements, instead of additions, after.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I suppose what would be on-topic is to talk about whether type 3 in its current form should be deleted instead of fixed. If that is decided we can talk about replacements, instead of additions, after.

Well, that's what my comment is about. Why I think it should be deleted (and why it doesnt really have any reason to be linked to mental stuff, since even some type 2 concepts do) and what it would need to be replaced with.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

So I think type 3 should be "small scale concepts", with reasons for the current one to be changed and reasons for why it should be changed like that.

I think it should be changed because:

-Concepts being influenced by the mind can apply to a lot of type 2. There's verses like Persona when universal concepts are linked to the Collective Unconscious, for instance (the verse should really lose their "type 1 and 3" to become type 2 btw).

-Besides the very first sentence, it isn't really that conceptual. It's basically the same thing as what DonttalkDT said, but without the change of being "affecting the mind", since it wasn't really the point of the description.



And I think it should be turned into (and maybe renamed as) "Small Scale concepts" because:

-We have no qualifications for concepts which only apply on a very limited scale instead of a universal one, and aren't linked to all the objects linked to it.

While current type 3 is supposed to fits this, a lot of said concepts don't fall into it (Ichibe's ink and some others kudodama stuff) because they don't have this mental thing, despite not being proven to be universal in scale and clearly applying to a specific object/individual/etc...
Or you have pages who just have no types because they don't fall under the ones we have, such as Medea's.

-One of the attributs would be that if said concept gets destroyed, it doesn't destroy the objects linked to it. Think of all these weapons, attacks, characters with the concept of victory, shield, unbreakability, etc... into them, whose destruction doesn't affect anything outside of themselves.

-However, said concepts are still subject to change from the reality in return. Just like type 2, if there's no shield in the world, the concept of a shield doesn't exist anymore. They also are subjects to change from a higher scale version of said concept, just like an object would.

-It would include a lot of things you usually would have troubled to qualify. All those vague statements regarding "attacking on a conceptual level", "using a weapon with the concept of piercing/unbreakability/slashing/etc...", "destroying someone's concept" or "altering the name/identity of x to turn them into x" and all you can think that is similar would fall under it.
Unless there's stuff proving another type of course.



Overall, that's a win in every way, with virtually no loss.

It doesn't even require big changes to pages or anything, since most type 3 usually qualify for it (mainly because of the first sentence of the current description), and others just lack any kind of types, which would just have them being updated overtime like any pages lacking a precision on what type they are.

I read this thread 2 times, and still haven't understood how you are shaping the new categories.
Can you explain in layman's terms how you are segregating these types and what final result will look like?

 

[QuasiYuri]

I read this thread 2 times, and still haven't understood how you are shaping the new categories.
Can you explain in layman's terms how you are segregating these types and what final result will look like?

Type 1 is universal independent concept
Type 2 is universal dependent concept
Type 3 is small scale dependent concept

 

[Executor_N0]

So, I have somethings to say here.

First trying to solve some problems with this "new Type 3" idea (Don't think that it would matter because QuasiYuri is retiring, but I think this will help if someone else has the same ideas).

I think that there's a bit of misunderstanding on "mind" in relation to this, and this of course has to do a bit with the limitations of our system of not really having anything to work with non-universal metaphysical essences.

When it's talking about "idealism", "Conceptualism" and "universals in the realm of mind", it's necessary to understand the other solution to the Problem of Universals, that is Realism that is what our First and Second types are based on.

Realism states that Universals, and metaphysical essences as a whole, have a "solid" existence in reality and are as real, if not more, than the physical existence that we can interact with our senses. It's what Platonism and Aristotelianism states, that they exists in a way that is independent of the mind.

The third type of Conceptual Manipulation although it isn't really Idealism, or Conceptualism, but it also states on that it's only a mental construct. Things like Persona 5 or any work that has something like a collective mind that has real effects in the physical world, isn't what this type is about. When an Idealist says that Universals exists in the realm of mind, what they mean is that they exist as a mental construct that we humans have developed to better understand the world, and although they exist as this "mental" constructs, they doesn't exist as something real in the same way that our "consciousness", having no physical existence or direct effect on it.

Any work that has consciousness/mind/soul as having a real existence and that its "collectiveness" and "created universals" have a real impact in the physical world, are not "Idealist" works and are not what Type 3 is about.

Of course it can be a bit hard to understand and this is a big oversimplification, because we are still using mostly the same terminology, "concepts/universals", "mind", etc and the difference is more on what the school of thought states what those things are, and some of them are more like a combination of many others (And that is why it's good to well define each one of them for our types in order to have a place to most types of fictional works).

Now that this is explained, about the thread itself. As I think it made clear in my previous explanation, the lack of a real solid explanation of what "Type 3" is about, makes this really hard to define. It seems to be related to Idealism as that it's about the mind and that they do not govern the physical reality, but we also state that Idealism is something else that does not have any validation to the Conceptual Manipulation as we use.

Of course the use of "Abstract" and "Mind" in this type still have the same problem of using names that can also be used in previous types, with a different meaning, because the different types are more like different definitions to the same name rather than something else.

Yet, the fact that they do not govern reality already gives a big idea that it's not talking about works that has a collective mind that shapes reality. (Isn't this why we should revise our page adding other things from time to time ?).

So, I assume that Type 3 is basically universals that exist in a cosmology where MInd exists as something "real" (As real as it can be of course), but with no effect on the "physical reality" and is more of a separate plane where we have our thoughts and the base of our collective understand of those thoughts are the univerals, is this right ? If that is the case, I'm fine with what you are suggesting.

In the end I think that most of the problems is because we look too much on "Concepts" alone and ignore all the other things that are related with such schools of thought. Things like "Mind", "Information", Soul", "Spirit" all have different explanations depending on the school of thought and we don't give enough explanation about any of that, and this just hurt others explanations about the other types that can use the same names for different things.

Your question about Information is exactly an example of that. Because the answer will simply depends on what you mean by "Information". Is "Information" refering simply to understand of things, of "abstract" objects that we use to understand things ? Or the product of said understanding ? Again, without analyzing that deep, the answer could be an yes or a no. But of course I don't think that matters a lot if we are not going to change our definitions of said things.

As such I don't think that I can give a good answer to that.

 

[Tago238]

I’m not feeling much better but I think at this point I need to comment, so.

To make it clear: a concept isn’t anything special. DT seems to distinguish it from an idea even though the two things are synonyms. I think it’s intuitive to have a category for concepts that just aren’t modelled in the special way type 2 and 1 concepts are; otherwise we’re excluding things that are definitionally concepts because of some contrived and, due to the fact that I don’t consider exclusion a justification in and of itself, arbitrary qualifications. Concepts as qualia just ain’t too absurd frankly.

Although to clarify, no it’s pretty clear emotions aren’t type 3 concepts. It specifically says “mental faculties such as cognition and the senses” (although admittedly mentioning “the senses” alongside “cognition” is redundant, I’m fine with editing that out). I also don’t see the point in mentioning how type 3’s description doesn’t clearly elucidate its stance on idealism, it’s mentioned elsewhere on the page.

I’m fine with separating smaller scale concepts with larger scale concepts if it can be implemented however trying to establish that by replacing the current definition of type 3 seems to ignore the necessity of the type existing.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

-Concepts being influenced by the mind can apply to a lot of type 2. There's verses like Persona when universal concepts are linked to the Collective Unconscious, for instance (the verse should really lose their "type 1 and 3" to become type 2 btw).

Also, no. That is not how Persona’s concept manipulation works at all.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0

What are the conclusions here so far?

Also, wiki policy threads created by staff members should preferably be placed in our staff forum.