Type 3 Concept Manip is not superior to normal abilities.

[Ricsi-viragosi]

And here we are, a discussion about how "conceptual" doesn't mean superiority in power for... a power. Type 4 is already subjective reality for groups, so let's get at type 3.

Aristotelian concepts are something's form. According to the concept (hehe) made by the man, reality is divided into matter and shape, the combination of which creates reality as we interact with it. For a simple example, I'll use a bronze ball.

Matter is easy, it's the physical components of something. For the bronze ball, it's bronze. Which is copper and tin. Which are... you get the idea.

Shape is the attribute(s) of the matter. In this example, the bronze ball has the attribute of being a sphere.


With type 3 concepts, the concept of "sphere" exists in the bronze ball. So, if you melted the bronze into a square, it would lose the concept of the sphere. If you destroyed all spheres in reality, the concept would also stop being. However, if you then make a snowball, suddenly the concept exists again.


Type 3 Conceptual Manipulation would be altering the attribute without needing to do so through the object. So, making the bronze ball into a square without needing to exerting energy on it.

The problem is... this isn't special. Things like being sentient, or alive, are still considered part of something's shape. So... death and mind manipulation that work without affecting a person's body would also be equal to type 3 - altering an attribute.


Mind, this doesn't make all non-physical abilities type 3 conceptual manipulation. Aristotelian conceptual manipulation assumes everything that exists has attributes, it's something that affects whole cosmologies if acknowledged, while simple mind manipulation tells us that sentient beings have a mind unrelated to their brain. All that is changed here, is that if someone uses type 3 concept manip to death manip an enemy with resistance to "normal" death manipulation, it won't automatically "lol concept" the resistance away.

Oh, and being erased conceptually with Type 3 means nothing beyond mind/soul/body erasure, and only gives type 1 NEP.


Not a crt, since this misconception appears more in vs threads or other crts, instead of on profiles. Nothing has to be edited, just something to inform people about.

Or I'm completely wrong. Either way, I felt general discussion was better for this.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Following.

 

[Regidian]

How this will work with abstracts being from type 3 concept?

And don't understand the NEP1 part, like if someone conceptualy erase the concept of their existence/being/self it's not type 3 concept?

 

[Garchomp777]

"However, if you then make a snowball, suddenly the concept exists again."
but the concept is gone forever

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

"However, if you then make a snowball, suddenly the concept exists again."
but the concept is gone forever

...No? Why would it be?

There isn't a greater concept that is destroyed, only Plato has that stuff.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

How this will work with abstracts being from type 3 concept?

And don't understand the NEP1 part, like if someone conceptualy erase the concept of their existence/being/self it's not type 3 concept?

I'm not sure how type 3 could have an abstract being. Concepts with Aristotle cannot exist without matter.

Having someone with abstract existence would be like having a square without matter. It doesn't work.


For NEP1, erasing someone conceptually with type 3 means that they neither have a body, nor a mind or soul. But they can still be imagined.

 

[Regidian]

I'm not sure how type 3 could have an abstract being. Concepts with Aristotle cannot exist without matter.

Having someone with abstract existence would be like having a square without matter. It doesn't work.


For NEP1, erasing someone conceptually with type 3 means that they neither have a body, nor a mind or soul. But they can still be imagined.

I mean it's weird a concept type 3 of death etc are not matter, i mean except if you tell that all concept that are not based on matter are not type 3 i don't understand

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

There isn't "a" concept of death. It's an attribute something can have.

A corpse is dead.

If there is no corpse, then nothing is dead.

 

[Regidian]

There isn't "a" concept of death. It's an attribute something can have.

A corpse is dead.

If there is no corpse, then nothing is dead.

Many verse are not okay with you

 

[Garchomp777]

There isn't "a" concept of death. It's an attribute something can have.

A corpse is dead.

If there is no corpse, then nothing is dead.

Many verses have it though

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

...Many verses don't follow Aristotle's ontology. That just means it's not Aristotelian Concept manipulation but something else.

 

[Regidian]

I mean concept=idea, if you have the idea of death, you have a concept that represent the idea of death, like all thing, dragon don't exist but we have a concept of dragon since it's an idea

 

[Garchomp777]

So this would apply to almost no concept user

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean concept=idea, if you have the idea of death, you have a concept that represent the idea of death, like all thing, dragon don't exist but we have a concept of dragon since it's an idea

That's... no. That definition isn't the one type 1, 2 or 3 conceptual manipulation use.

That is type 4 conceptual manipulation or Idealism.

As I said in the OP, "concept" in type 3 is something's "shape", the attributes it has.

So this would apply to almost no concept user

Besides any character who uses type 3, you mean? They either aren't type 3, or fall under this.

 

[Regidian]

That's... no. That definition isn't the one type 1, 2 or 3 conceptual manipulation use.

That is type 4 conceptual manipulation or Idealism.

As I said in the OP, "concept" in type 3 is something's "shape", the attributes it has.



Besides any character who uses type 3, you mean? They either aren't type 3, or fall under this.

It's the base definition of a concept so well. I'm pretty sure that most concept are something that shape, the attributes that they have, even type 2 tell about it.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

It's the base definition of a concept so well. I'm pretty sure that most concept are something that shape, the attributes that they have, even type 2 tell about it.

Googling the definition of a word is not going to win an argument. I mean, see what "bloodlusted" means, and then look at our wiki's definition.

Type 1/2 is unrelated to perception. It is an ideal form of something, unrelated to our perception. Objects take part in the concept, but not the other way.

Type 3 is the attribute of matter. An object is the combination of raw materials and the shape/attributes of that material.

Type 4 is the common perception of reality.

Idealism is "reality is what we perceive", from being a "we can't know anything we don't think exists" to "everything in existence besides me is my imagination".


By all means, go and check what Aristotle's ontology is like.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I always did find type 3 odd with its relation to physicality. I just never knew how to voice it.

 

[Makenai]

Agree, sometimes i wonder what the heck people means by conceptual attack or defense, like conceptual laser or conceptual sword etc. I mean thats pretty much not different than normal laser and sword unless its somewhat higher concepts like type 2 or 1.

 

[Regidian]

Googling the definition of a word is not going to win an argument. I mean, see what "bloodlusted" means, and then look at our wiki's definition.

Type 1/2 is unrelated to perception. It is an ideal form of something, unrelated to our perception. Objects take part in the concept, but not the other way.

Type 3 is the attribute of matter. An object is the combination of raw materials and the shape/attributes of that material.

Type 4 is the common perception of reality.

Idealism is "reality is what we perceive", from being a "we can't know anything we don't think exists" to "everything in existence besides me is my imagination".


By all means, go and check what Aristotle's ontology is like.

My first thing was not about perception i have tell that if you think of something (idea) then it exist a concept about it, you can create because of your perception (so like type 4) but it could have always existed like type 1 and 2 in the two case they have concept of death.


And i'm pretty sure that here type 3 was never related to only matter because most fo the type 3 concept i have see here doesn't base about that

 

[Makenai]

And i'm pretty sure that here type 3 was never related to only matter because most fo the type 3 concept i have see here doesn't base about that

Type 3 related to the object itself. Like if you destroy every sword in the universe then you essentially destroying type 3 concepts of sword.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

My first thing was not about perception i have tell that if you think of something (idea) then it exist a concept about it, you can create because of your perception (so like type 4) but it could have always existed like type 1 and 2 in the two case they have concept of death.

That's simply not true for type 3 concepts. It's not how they work.

And i'm pretty sure that here type 3 was never related to only matter because most fo the type 3 concept i have see here doesn't base about that

"3. Aristotelian Concept: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself. These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract Aristotelian Concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality. This, however, does not qualify for this form of conceptual manipulation, and is rather treated as a byproduct of another action akin to a "domino effect". This type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify."

 

[Regidian]

That's simply not true for type 3 concepts. It's not how they work.

"3. Aristotelian Concept: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself. These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract Aristotelian Concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality. This, however, does not qualify for this form of conceptual manipulation, and is rather treated as a byproduct of another action akin to a "domino effect". This type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify."

Then where does thing like concept of death, of soul, of time, of space, of distance etc go?

 

[Planck69]

Depends on how it's treated.

 

[Regidian]

Well i wait to see what thing the staff that are knowlowedge in that...

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Then where does thing like concept of death, of soul, of time, of space, of distance etc go?

An object is matter and form combined. Nothing exists without one or the other.

The "concept" is the form portion. A corpse and a living person are made of the same matter, but their "form" is different.

...As far as Aristotle goes, anyways.

 

[Makenai]

Then where does thing like concept of death, of soul, of time, of space, of distance etc go?

What do you mean?

Type 4 only exist as an idea, you wanted to change type 4 concepts without having conceptual manipulation? simple, change that idea form everyone's head and you done. Likewise destroying the object of type 3 concepts then the type 3 concepts of the object itself is destroyed.

 

[Regidian]

What do you mean?

Type 4 only exist as an idea, you wanted to change type 4 concepts without having conceptual manipulation? simple, change that idea form everyone's head and you done. Likewise destroying the object of type 3 concepts then the type 3 concepts of the object itself is destroyed.

I dont understand why you answer me with that(don't talk about type 4 concept), i ask where thing like concept of death/soul/time/space etc that are now linked to type 3 concept in most of page will go because they are not type 4 but most of them are not type 1/2 too

 

[Makenai]

I dot understand what you tell, i ask where thing like concept of death/soul/time/space etc that are now linked to type 3 concept in most of page will go because they are not type 4 but most of them are not type 1/2 too

If they exist and govern reality then they're type 3 if they only exist as an idea like your dragon example then its type 4. Simple right?

 

[Regidian]

If they exist and govern reality then they're type 3 if they only exist as an idea like your dragon example then its type 4. Simple right?

But Ricsi litteraly tell they can't be type 3 because not made of matter and form lol

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Can you look at the image I uploaded?

The overarching concept is the thing. The concept of death exists inside of dead things. If nothing is dead, the concept of death doesn't exist. Same for life, if all life disappeared then the concept of life would stop being.

Reality is the combination of matter and shape. There is no shape without matter, and all matter has shape.

 

[Makenai]

But Ricsi litteraly tell they can't be type 3 because not made of matter and form lol

Lmao so why tell me that? I'm not him, i'm pretty sure what he mean by matter and form is the object itself and actually exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you're not dumb enough to not understand that.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Just wanna say that while type 3 is called Aristolean, it doesn't fully follow his application (and in fact nearly doesn't). Like type 1/2 with Plato.

Also Conceptual Manipulation is getting revised and said revision is nearly ready to apply.

 

[Regidian]

Lmao so why tell me that? I'm not him, i'm pretty sure what he mean by matter and form is the object itself and actually exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you're not dumb enough to not understand that.

But it's you who answer with that in first lol, it's why i ask why you tell me that when it have nothing to do my question...

And for the second it's why i ask him where he think that these thing go because they don't have object that exist in the reality....

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Just wanna say that while type 3 is called Aristolean, it doesn't fully follow his application (and in fact nearly doesn't). Like type 1/2 with Plato.

Also Conceptual Manipulation is getting revised and said revision is nearly ready to apply.

Even by the wiki's definition what I said mostly applies. It's still an attribute intrinsic to something that makes the ability work, and since the concept is specifically not above everything, it still wouldn't be superior.

 

[Makenai]

But it's you who answer with that in first lol, it's why i ask why you tell me that when it have nothing to do my question...

What? You ask what time, soul, space etc belong to, right? And i'm answer if they didn't exist then type 4 if they If they exist in reality then type 3.

What are you talking About?

 

[Regidian]

What? You ask what time, soul, space etc belong to, right? And i'm answer if they didn't exist then type 4 if they If they exist in reality then type 3.

What are you talking About?

Drop it, don't need to talk more about it

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

The wiki doesn't use the exact definitions that Aristotle and plato used. If we did, then we wouldn't have ongoing discussions of whether or not the concept(s) of Math could ever be a type 3 concept, as it is unbound from any individual objects but still arguably bound to the same level of existence. If we decide to go the route that the OP describes, that just means we would need a new kind of concept that functions the same or very similar to our current type 3 standards but that isn't bound to matter or anything. By your definition, we could never have an abstract type 3 concept that is Unbound from matter or objects, which many of the current type 3 users have.

 

[KingPin0422]

Concepts on this Wiki are frankly very wanked and misunderstood, no doubt helped by the incorrect usage of them: we arbitrarily separate 1-A Platonic concepts from those that are not 1-A, for example, although that will soon be fixed. In the first place, I don't think we should tie our types of concepts specifically to Greek philosophy - I'm fairly certain that Jung's archetypes and Kant's noumena have enough in common with Platonic Forms to be put in the same "weight class" as them, so to speak. I can't speak for dependent universal concepts or "lesser realist" concepts on this front.

The wiki doesn't use the exact definitions that Aristotle and plato used. If we did, then we wouldn't have ongoing discussions of whether or not the concept(s) of Math could ever be a type 3 concept, as it is unbound from any individual objects but still arguably bound to the same level of existence.

I find this point to be irrelevant. Can't an author decide how math works in their fiction? Either way, I don't see how choosing to be more accurate to Aristotle's philosophy will put a stop to such a topic.

If we decide to go the route that the OP describes, that just means we would need a new kind of concept that functions the same or very similar to our current type 3 standards but that isn't bound to matter or anything. By your definition, we could never have an abstract type 3 concept that is Unbound from matter or objects, which many of the current type 3 users have.

If those concepts exist independently of matter and of the objects that participate in them, then they are not Aristotelian concepts. Our own Conceptual Manipulation page outright says:

Aristotelian Concept: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself. These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract Aristotelian Concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality. This, however, does not qualify for this form of conceptual manipulation, and is rather treated as a byproduct of another action akin to a "domino effect". This type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify.

Also, I'll just say now that we plan to make it so that independent universal concepts are not automatically treated as being ontologically greater than the reality they govern. By default, they're just not bound to it, just like how we separate type 0 Beyond-Dimensional Existence from the other types. Superiority shouldn't be a default assumption without the verse giving reason to believe that such is the case.

 

[Regidian]

Concepts on this Wiki are frankly very wanked and misunderstood, no doubt helped by the incorrect usage of them: we arbitrarily separate 1-A Platonic concepts from those that are not 1-A, for example, although that will soon be fixed. In the first place, I don't think we should tie our types of concepts specifically to Greek philosophy - I'm fairly certain that Jung's archetypes and Kant's noumena have enough in common with Platonic Forms to be put in the same "weight class" as them, so to speak. I can't speak for dependent universal concepts or "lesser realist" concepts on this front.


I find this point to be irrelevant. Can't an author decide how math works in their fiction? Either way, I don't see how choosing to be more accurate to Aristotle's philosophy will put a stop to such a topic.

If those concepts exist independently of matter and of the objects that participate in them, then they are not Aristotelian concepts. Our own Conceptual Manipulation page outright says:

Also, I'll just say now that we plan to make it so that independent universal concepts are not automatically treated as being ontologically greater than the reality they govern. By default, they're just not bound to it, just like how we separate type 0 Beyond-Dimensional Existence from the other types. Superiority shouldn't be a default assumption without the verse giving reason to believe that such is the case.

We still can have AE type 1 for concept manip type 3 or not?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Even normal Aristotelian concept erasure would warrant type 1, so this wiki's jacked up version would as well.