Soul Manipulation and The Real World

[Agnaa]

I see no reason to assume souls exist in the real wold, especially for the purpose of vs debate.

Because the logical extension of this is to assume that plots don't exist, concepts don't exist, lines of death don't exist, etc.

Hampering character's legitimate in-verse movesets just because they're going against real world characters.

 

[Ogbunabali]

@Assaltwaffle In order for you to create a chair you need to know what a chair is. Which is what the concept of a chair is, something that you can sit on. And there is an objective definition of what a bottle is. Let's not fall down the post-modernist rabbit hole.

@DontTalkDT By your own argument soul hax from one verse doesn't work on soul hax on other verses, because they are different versions of soul hax, or the characters have a different soul. AKA goodbye to verse equalization in general.

Sure, but not only are you asking me to prove a negative, which isn't how it works burden of proof is on you, but you're also using headcanon to imply that something exist without any evidence for it.

 

[Sera_EX]

Also, DontTalk makes sense about verse equalization.

 

[Agnaa]

A concept of self is an idea beyond just "abstract things defining all of reality", note its usage in psychological terms. That sort of thing should be able to be swapped out.

As for the eyes of death thing, if they're a construct intrinsic to the victim I wouldn't think so.

I don't think it's just a psychological thing. It lets the user copy the other person's appearance, physical characteristics, and abilities. It's pretty simply conceptual manipulation.

So Ryougi Shiki gets stomped by A T-rex...

I don't think this is the standard we should use when operating a fictional character battles wiki.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

This should be a gray area imo.

 

[The_Impress]

I'll retort my same BS:

There must be like 20 different M1 Abrams, with varying skills for the personnels, and states of disrepair. We are using a hypothetical, ideal tank for the profiles, which IRL is unlikely.

Tbh, this reasoning gets weird on the nukes but still. On the profiles that matter, we are using a hypothetical, ideal version of the member of the species, not an actual model. Therefore the animal is fictional, and susceptible to verse equalization

 

[Wokistan]

She can still win with every single other power she has

This does bring up an interesting point though. When using files for animals and stuff, should we assume the animals exist within the context of the verse (This doesn't really apply to things like composite human)

 

[Wokistan]

Meant it less as a psychoplogical thing and more that psychology actually defines this term, and puts it in use in an accepted manner.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Ogbunabali

So, a chair is something you can sit on. I can sit on the ground. Is the ground a chair? Of course you can get more specific, but how specific? This line of thought starts to break down.

I can create something that I can call a chair, and for all intents and purposes it's a chair, but unless you except Plato's forms there is no such thing as a true form of an objective chair. Also, other cultures can have a chair that I don't think is a chair. Even if they call it chair, I don't identify it as a chair. Who's right? Is the viewer ignorant or the maker wrong? In either case, how can that be if a chair is a chair?

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT By your own argument soul hax from one verse doesn't work on soul hax on other verses, because they are different versions of soul hax, or the characters have a different soul. AKA goodbye to verse equalization in general.

Sure, but not only are you asking me to prove a negative, which isn't how it works burden of proof is on you, but you're also using headcanon to imply that something exist without any evidence for it.

No? As said everything works like for the verse it is in. Hence soul hax from one verse would interact with soul hax from the other verse, in the same fashion soul hax from one verse interacts with soul hax from its own verse.

I literally don't try to prove the exisence of anything. I couldn't give two flying f**ks if souls exist or not. The point is that the effects of the techniques stay the same in battles as they do when a character usually uses them.


Like seriously, people are acting like city level punches should cause nuclear fusion since that is how they would interact with matter in real life.

 

[A_Stoned_Orc]

I agree with DontTalk. There is no burden of proof, because there shouldn't have to be a burden. If it's a "real life" profile, it should have a soul/chakra/ki/whatever to fit with the fictional verse's powerset. Otherwise, you're pointlessly nerfing a character's moveset.

Arguing that "we don't know if souls are real" and banning soulhax from a match because of it is like saying that Digimon can only affect computers, making them 9-C-ish.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I keep my stance from the last thread.

Let's call the random real life human in this scenario Ralph.

• Ralph can't be mindhaxed we emotion haxed because there's no scientific proof that mental status and emotions are anything more than chemicals.
• Ralph can't have his life force screwed with because there's no proof of life force.
• People fighting Ralph have to do a set amount of damage (a city buster has to destroy a city with every one of his punches) because the AoE fallacy doesn't exist in the real world.
• Anyone with a set speed will automatically destroy Ralph and themselves as kinetic energy is a thing.
• Existence erasure and spatial deletion don't work on Ralph due to the law of conservation of mass/energy.
• Ralph can't have causality screwed with because [insert paradox here]

And many more

 

[Agnaa]

She can still win with every single other power she has

This does bring up an interesting point though. When using files for animals and stuff, should we assume the animals exist within the context of the verse (This doesn't really apply to things like composite human)

Expert combat skill, being able to destroy barriers, combat clairvoyance and a few resistances can only take her so far.

Even if the characters are real, during fights we should apply the same standards to them as we do to fictional characters. A T-Rex shouldn't get extra resistances (immune to conceptual death manip) with the same feats just because it's from real life.

 

[Sera_EX]

What...

Ugh. Never mind. This is obviously one of those things I need to stay away from.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Cal

Technically energy density can allow for city-destroying energy not to destroy the city.

 

[Wokistan]

I keep my stance from the last thread.

Let's call the random real life human in this scenario Ralph.

• This doesn't really impede mindhax, unless its like exclusively spiritual or something.
• Sure.
• Ralph isn't just carrying around the entire laws of reality with him. It's things specifically bound to the person thmself.
• Ditto.
• Spatial deletion and EE already don't obey these laws.
• Characters already weaponize paradoxes for this sort of thing.

 

[Ogbunabali]

@Assaltwaffle You're really going deep into post-modernism and that's a whole other can of worms, for another thread.

@DontTalkDT And having earth manipulation mean you would still manipulate earth if the place you're in doesn't have earth in it right?

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Personally, I just think there is no reason to treat real life any different from other verse just because "it's real life"; if there is a reason for some standard not to be used in real life (like the outlier or calc stacking examples), then I think not using them is perfectly fine, but if there isn't a reason for a standard not to be used, then I really don't think an exception should be made just because "it's real life." If "everything has a soul unless stated otherwise" is the standard that you guys use, then there is no reason not to use it when dealing with real life.

 

[Sera_EX]

Death manip clearly works on a T Rex though. They're mortal. They can die. They don't have souls.

What's with all these false equivalencies?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Ogbundabali

I mean I'm an objectivist but saying there is some universal definition for something is a bit off. If you want a relativist that is really deep into that I'm sure you'd hate love Richard Rorty.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

Personally, I just think we just handle things how we have been tbh. We really shouldn't have to change our standards simply because of Real World. One cannot prove a soul. The existence of a soul is a belief. A belief that many countries share. Personally, I feel like we are doing too much and trying to make everything needlessly complicated to the point it's feeling pretentious imho. However, I may be in the minority, things should be kept as is. For me personally, everything should be assumed to have a soul, even Real World. But considering this thread's existence, this i not going to fly.

 

[Sera_EX]

Personally, I just think there is no reason to treat real life any different from other verse just because "it's real life"; if there is a reason for some standard not to be used in real life (like the outlier or calc stacking examples), then I think not using them is perfectly fine, but if there isn't a reason for a standard not to be used, then I really don't think an exception should be made just because "it's real life." If "everything has a soul unless stated otherwise" is the standard that you guys use, then there is no reason not to use it when dealing with real life.

There's no soul. Burden of proof falls on the one claiming it exists to prove it does, that's why it still has no concrete evidence supporting it.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Sera EX

I mean they could have souls. Many people believe animals have souls.

 

[Agnaa]

@Assaltwaffle You're really going deep into post-modernism and that's a whole other can of worms, for another thread.

Post-modernism is real world philosophy. You can't just ignore it like that when talking about how real life profiles should be treated.

 

[Ogbunabali]

@Assaltwaffle That's headcanon.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Assalt

I meant living creatures don't have souls at all, humans or animals. For the real world we should go by what's scientifically proven.

I really don't want to actually suggest we don't even use real life files in vs matches if that much of an issue, I'd rather however maintain the mindset that they are primarily for reference as an indexing wiki.

 

[Agnaa]

Death manip clearly works on a T Rex though. They're mortal. They can die. They don't have souls.

What's with all these false equivalencies?

They don't have lines of death, so Ryougi's death manip wouldn't work on them.

It's not a false equivalence when the OP of this thread has agreed that it wouldn't work on real world creatures.

 

[Paul_Frank]

Okay so ch isnt assumed to know everything about the opponent for the sake of fairness so why would he be immune to everything that exists in fictional verses just because they don't exist in the real world

 

[Wokistan]

I don't think real life really has a "canon", which makes using the term headcannon a bit strange.

As for the death eyes thing I do not know much about the verse, but it seems like it more closely equalizes to mortality which is very much a thing in real life anyways.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

There's no soul. Burden of proof falls on the one claiming it exists to prove it does, that's why it still has no concrete evidence supporting it.

Ok, but this has nothing to do with what I said. The standard you guys use on the wiki is "everything has a soul unless stated otherwise", so there is no reason to treat real life different.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Assaltwaffle That's headcanon.

I think you mean belief, sir.

Also if you're going to say that's belief let's go full Descartes and say that the only thing that isn't belief is that I exist, since I think.

 

[Agnaa]

@Assalt

I meant living creatures don't have souls at all, humans or animals. For the real world we should go by what's scientifically proven.

I really don't want to actually suggest we don't even use real life files in vs matches if that much of an issue, I'd rather however maintain the mindset that they are primarily for reference as an indexing wiki.

There's no scientifically proven plot to manipulate, concepts to manipulate, life force to manipulate, fate to manipulate, etc etc.

 

[Wokistan]

They don't know everything about the opponent because their opponent isn't fictional in the context of the thread, not just for fairness.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

It's not a false equivalence when the OP of this thread has agreed that it wouldn't work on real world creatures.

"if they're a construct intrinsic to the victim" is the part that I think you might have missed.

Things don't literally have lines of death, Mystic Eyes of Death just interpret the end of all things as lines of death.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

>Headcannon

When we start using that word for real life stuff, we've got a problem....

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Sera

Let's also scrap String Theory, then, since that's not falsifiable.

Saying that "living creatures don't have souls at all" is your belief.

 

[The_Impress]

Okay, this will sound insane and uber-zealothy but listen,

Technically, atoms, electrons and photons are theorhetical concepts, just like soul. Conventional gravity, as stated by Newton, has been replaced in modern physics by Relativity, so Gravity are about as much valid as souls now.

Science is kind of always shifting, so ignoring a concept to exist in real life just because "there's no proof of it" is kind of BS

 

[Ogbunabali]

I think you mean belief, sir.

Also if you're going to say that's belief let's go full Descartes and say that the only thing that isn't belief is that I exist, since I think.

Do you and Wokistan really have to spoil a joke?

And no, it's not. There is literally no proof that souls exist, which means that if you assume they do is headcano a baseless assumption.

 

[Wokistan]

Yeah we can't really just eschew philosophies in a thread that's essentially a discussion on how we should apply philosophy to these threads. There's ways to make refutations of axioms argued by some philosophies, but just saying "postmodernism bad" isn't really an argument.

 

[Agnaa]

"if they're a construct intrinsic to the victim" is the part that I think you might have missed.

Things don't literally have lines of death, Mystic Eyes of Death just interpret the end of all things as lines of death.

There's many constructs intrinsic to the victim that are generally equalized in threads.

These constructs are automatically equalized when they apply to everything in the verse, such as life force or concepts. But they're not automatically equalized when they only apply to some people, such as ki or stands.