- 4,325
- 732
I mean about abstract existance type 1 based on type 3 conceptEven normal Aristotelian concept erasure would warrant type 1, so this wiki's jacked up version would as well.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I mean about abstract existance type 1 based on type 3 conceptEven normal Aristotelian concept erasure would warrant type 1, so this wiki's jacked up version would as well.
I think it would be good to continue the actual revision instead of doing too much threads at the same time.I know jack shit about SCP, but if they're outdated, then it's best if we let the experts on the verse revise the conceptual manipulation of the characters.
Anyway, this won't get anywhere without staff input. I'll do what I can to boost the signal.
My point was on how we treat verses without further context. Usually "aethereal" concepts were taken as type 3 by default; In other words when the author doesn't make a direct cosmological statement on it. If numbers are bound the way that concepts are in the OP, then numbers that do not have a specific physical set of objects containing them simply do not exist. Like if there were hypothetically only 2 objects in existence, then the numbers above like 3 would not exist as a concept. It would be easy to say that math is bound to some level of existence, but saying that it is bound to objects by default is simply too extreme a verse claim to be made without further evidence. Anyway, I'll circle back around to my main 2 points. If we go with this: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.
Okay, so to invert this, this means that implicitly any verse that does treat conceptual death manipulation for example as superior to other death manipulation, or a verse that does treat erasing something on a conceptual level as a step above erasing the mind/soul/body would automatically not be type 3 concepts then. You can resist something on a physical level, but not necessarily have a resistance to having your attributes altered directly. I know you said this isn't a CRT, but if this "clarification" is accepted, then this is going to change the profiles that are currently indexed with type 3 conceptual abilities in a verse that treats these as being superior to just normal abilities.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.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, what the ****? And why is Risci agreeing to this?On another note
Okay, so to invert this, this means that implicitly any verse that does treat conceptual death manipulation for example as superior to other death manipulation, or a verse that does treat erasing something on a conceptual level as a step above erasing the mind/soul/body would automatically not be type 3 concepts then. You can resist something on a physical level, but not necessarily have a resistance to having your attributes altered directly. I know you said this isn't a CRT, but if this "clarification" is accepted, then this is going to change the profiles that are currently indexed with type 3 conceptual abilities in a verse that treats these as being superior to just normal abilities.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, what the ****? And why is Risci agreeing to this?
If a verse demonstrates concepts on a certain level but says a sub-effect of them, i.e. death manipulation, is stronger than we'd usually expect for that kind of concept, that doesn't mean it's suddenly a stronger type of concept.
Conceptual death manip being superior to normal death manip does not mean the concept is automatically type 2. It just means that that verse's conceptual death manip is stronger than normal death manip.
I don't like assuming concepts are abstract to begin with. Non-abstract concepts exist, and I'm pretty sure many authors aren't thinking about a particular definition of concepts when they mention them. Sure, you can use context clues to figure out what the author meant when they mentioned concepts, but otherwise, I disagree with having a "default assumption" for the nature of concepts.My point was on how we treat verses without further context. Usually "aethereal" concepts were taken as type 3 by default; In other words when the author doesn't make a direct cosmological statement on it. If numbers are bound the way that concepts are in the OP, then numbers that do not have a specific physical set of objects containing them simply do not exist. Like if there were hypothetically only 2 objects in existence, then the numbers above like 3 would not exist as a concept. It would be easy to say that math is bound to some level of existence, but saying that it is bound to objects by default is simply too extreme a verse claim to be made without further evidence. Anyway, I'll circle back around to my main 2 points. If we go with this:
- We need a different kind of concept that is bound to a "level" of existence or a space as opposed to objects that individually participate in them. I'm not opposed to us making concepts more accurate to the original on principle, but many of the concepts we currently treat as type 3 do not work. We need something else closer to how the type 3 concepts were practically treated some of the time as well.
- We need to change how we treat concepts by "default." If we are getting way more particular with our definitions, we should not be working under such specific cosmological claims with no other context. Math is an example of a concept that was previously treated by default that becomes too extreme a claim a claim under such circumstances
As explained above, that can still fall under dependent universal concepts. No need to make an all new type just because of a small variation that one type of concept can have.Except that Type 3 has often been used to describe also concepts bound to a level of existence, instead of just being transcendent of it. Things like Entropy. Think of them like the concepts that all or functionally all of reality participates in instead of just particular objects. I know the definition, but there can be a functional definition and a literal one, especially when most of the time we end up just shoving concepts into the closest one on the list
What the hell? Why would concepts need to be transcendent over their reality to qualify as Platonic? Also, I thought I made it clear earlier that we're not sticking to Greek philosophy anymore. As incredible as it may seem, abstract concepts go beyond simply Plato and Aristotle. We shouldn't give those two special treatment just because of their significance.Sounds like we need another type that is to go along with the one that is not superior then. I'll say this as well, those definitely are not Platonic concepts if they are not ontologically superior to the reality they govern, so we will need a new name for those. Perhaps let's find the name of a philosopher who claims such, and call them that. We can keep the concepts that are ontologically superior as called platonic concepts, if we are gonna be trying to stick to the original philosophers more