VS Battles To-do list (Help greatly needed)

[Antvasima]

I have also had a hard time remembering. It used to be article 20 though, and discussions about verse titles are what is relevant here.

 

[Antvasima]

Would somebody here be willing to investigate please?

 

[Damage3245]

I'm not familiar with the abstract existence discussion.


As for No. 19, that is 99% done. There's a couple examples left of verses that have multiple series which have their own verse pages which haven't been renamed yet. Aside from that, think the other verse pages have a consistent naming scheme now.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm not familiar with the abstract existence discussion.

No problem. It was an open question to Dereck03 and in general.

As for No. 19, that is 99% done. There's a couple examples left of verses that have multiple series which have their own verse pages which haven't been renamed yet. Aside from that, think the other verse pages have a consistent naming scheme now.

Oh, you have actually taken the time to correct them? That is great in that case. Thank you very much for helping out.

Anyway, what I asked for above was a rule text regarding the issue, so such errors are not repeated much in the future.

 

[Dereck03]

However, I did not do so for article 11, as almost no knowledgeable members seem to have written down their usernames in our Knowledgeable Members List for wiki terms. We need to continue to pay attention to that.

Fair enough.

"Always use calculations as a basis for statistics between tiers 9-A and 3-B, except for very self-evident cases of tier 5-C and upwards."

Simple enough i guess and seems fine.

Please explain further regarding how article 20 was rejected.

After looking at the thread only @Andytrenom seems to have disagreed, I thought I read that more than 1 had rejected this, well it is still under discussion.

Well, I am strictly arguing for that we should use the <gallery> </gallery> code rather than anything much more complicated. Customising the standard gallery code depending on what works best for each verse is perfectly fine.

If so, then I see no problem in accepting it.

No problem. It was an open question to Dereck03 and in general.

Let's see your proposal.
"Personally, I think that the misunderstanding might come from that somebody wrote "Abstract Existence is the ability to embody an abstraction, such as a concept, thought, or an information" instead of "Abstract Existence is the ability to embody an abstraction, such as a concept or idea" in order to keep the ability easy to understand. That should probably be adjusted.""

I share the same opinion as @Andytrenom

"My concern is that this will set a precedent that all spiritual beings listed in the wiki should automatically get Abstract Existence instead of Incorporeality."

This would depend on the context and mechanics of each character's verse in question and I am not sure that categorizing all spiritual beings as AE is correct since many would not qualify by feats alone and there may be many contradictions. You can call staff who knows about AE to discuss this but I think it would be necessary to finish the tasks that we already have almost done before continuing to send notifications and overload the tasks.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, my old concern was that we have too lenient standards for abstract existence, not that we have too strict ones, so I am not sure how to interpret your response properly in this regard.

Anyway, I would still very much appreciate if somebody is willing to write a draft rule text for article 19.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

On animal intelligence, I don't think we can really have a clear cut scientific boundary since there isn't really an objective approach on measuring that and often times intelligence tests designed for human scenarios aren't really scenarios that the animal's biology is adapted to face. A quick Google shows a variety of techniques used by scientists and also read a few articles saying that should be flexible in determining animal intelligence.

I do think it would be useful to differentiate between less and more capable animalistic intelligence, but I think we might just have to put a somewhat vague definition along the lines of Ant's above and rate our profiles on a case-by-case basis.

 

[FinePoint]

Well, preferably the classification should come secondary to an explanation of one's intelligence to account for subjectivity.
If we leave the definitions sort of vague, but people justify their explanations properly, then it shouldn't be a big deal.
I think making a distinction should at least inspire people to put a little more thought into it than just labeling literally everything below human level as "animalistic". I would see the vague categories as follows:

Instinctual - An animal operating almost entirely on instinct with little thinking. Ex: Many insects, reptiles, and amphibians.
Animalistic - Typical animals who demonstrate simple learning, long-term memory, and basic sentience- such as most mammals.
High Animalistic - Animals who demonstrate critical thinking, social learning, tool-usage, and self-awareness such as: Dolphins, great apes, elephants, octopi, and corvids.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, preferably the classification should come secondary to an explanation of one's intelligence to account for subjectivity.
If we leave the definitions sort of vague, but people justify their explanations properly, then it shouldn't be a big deal.
I think making a distinction should at least inspire people to put a little more thought into it than just labeling literally everything below human level as "animalistic". I would see the vague categories as follows:

Instinctual - An animal operating almost entirely on instinct with little thinking. Ex: Many insects, reptiles, and amphibians.
Animalistic - Typical animals who demonstrate simple learning, long-term memory, and basic sentience- such as most mammals.
High Animalistic - Animals who demonstrate critical thinking, social learning, tool-usage, and self-awareness such as: Dolphins, great apes, elephants, octopi, and corvids.

Thank you for helping out. I am largely in favour of your suggestions, but should we use the name "Instinctive" or "Instinctual"?

Also, shouldn't reptiles and amphibians generally qualify for "Animalistic" intelligence, whereas "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" is reserved for insects and the like?

And should be classify amoebas and similar extremely simple creatures as "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" or "Mindless"?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

And should be classify amoebas and similar extremely simple creatures as "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" or "Mindless"?

(This is how Kurzgeagt is reliable btw (backup))
Kurzgeagt has made 2 vids, one on intelligence (backup) & another on consciousness (backup).

Intelligence & consciousness is connected to each other, & both are complicated.

If you ask me, the organisms with the most basic forms of intelligence should be instinctual. If it's an organism like this, instinctual (though that's all I know about the mold though). I'd say that things with mindless behaviors are mindless & the most basic forms of consciousness/awareness are instinctual.

Though I'm not staff, I did provide 3 vids that are like 25 mins in total.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about the following ascending lower intelligence system that we discussed earlier in this thread?

Mindless

Instinctive/Instinctual

Animalistic

High Animalistic

Etc.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Since it's just suggested rankings that probably is ok.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

On animal intelligence, I don't think we can really have a clear cut scientific boundary since there isn't really an objective approach on measuring that and often times intelligence tests designed for human scenarios aren't really scenarios that the animal's biology is adapted to face. A quick Google shows a variety of techniques used by scientists and also read a few articles saying that should be flexible in determining animal intelligence.

I do think it would be useful to differentiate between less and more capable animalistic intelligence, but I think we might just have to put a somewhat vague definition along the lines of Ant's above and rate our profiles on a case-by-case basis.

Well, preferably the classification should come secondary to an explanation of one's intelligence to account for subjectivity.
If we leave the definitions sort of vague, but people justify their explanations properly, then it shouldn't be a big deal.
I think making a distinction should at least inspire people to put a little more thought into it than just labeling literally everything below human level as "animalistic". I would see the vague categories as follows:

Instinctual - An animal operating almost entirely on instinct with little thinking. Ex: Many insects, reptiles, and amphibians.
Animalistic - Typical animals who demonstrate simple learning, long-term memory, and basic sentience- such as most mammals.
High Animalistic - Animals who demonstrate critical thinking, social learning, tool-usage, and self-awareness such as: Dolphins, great apes, elephants, octopi, and corvids.

Thank you for helping out. I am largely in favour of your suggestions, but should we use the name "Instinctive" or "Instinctual"?

Also, shouldn't reptiles and amphibians generally qualify for "Animalistic" intelligence, whereas "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" is reserved for insects and the like?

And should be classify amoebas and similar extremely simple creatures as "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" or "Mindless"?

(This is how Kurzgeagt is reliable btw (backup))
Kurzgeagt has made 2 vids, one on intelligence (backup) & another on consciousness (backup).

Intelligence & consciousness is connected to each other, & both are complicated.

If you ask me, the organisms with the most basic forms of intelligence should be instinctual. If it's an organism like this, instinctual (though that's all I know about the mold though). I'd say that things with mindless behaviors are mindless & the most basic forms of consciousness/awareness are instinctual.

Though I'm not staff, I did provide 3 vids that are like 25 mins in total.

What do the rest of you think about this?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Thank you for the reply.




What do the rest of you think about this?

Bump. So who's callin who?

 

[Antvasima]

@Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @FinePoint @Dereck03 @Damage3245 @Agnaa @Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @KLOL506 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Mariogoods @Armorchompy @Nehz_XZX @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Andytrenom @Zaratthustra @GyroNutz @Propellus

I would very much appreciate your evaluations regarding this:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/vs-battles-to-do-list-help-greatly-needed.139232/post-4994708

 

[FinePoint]

Well, there's things like Snails, Tadpoles, Starfish, Jellyfish. Microorganisms, Fungi, perhaps certain snakes, and other non-insects that have a brain or equivalent, and do react to things and seek things out (not truly mindless), who I think could qualify for instinctual instead.

Most reptiles and amphibians would probably still be animalistic though, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, that seems to make sense to me.

 

[Armorchompy]

I still think the distinction is very hard to make, would require a lot more research and it'd be better to avoid the split.

 

[Tllmbrg]

I also I think the split it pointless

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I definitely think that we should make one, as just "Animalistic" is far too broad if it includes both amoeba, dolphins, and anything in-between.

 

[Agnaa]

As before, I don't like making the split. If you do make a split, that may be a way to do it, but idk which animals would qualify under each category.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, there's things like Snails, Tadpoles, Starfish, Jellyfish. Microorganisms, Fungi, perhaps certain snakes, and other non-insects that have a brain or equivalent, and do react to things and seek things out (not truly mindless), who I think could qualify for instinctual instead.

Well, this would be a pretty good distinction for Instinctual/Instinctive at least.

High Animalistic would be dolphins and smart dogs, for example.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Ant nobody besides you is supporting the idea
Is it technically right that dolphins are way smarter then say turtles?
Sure, but I don't think it's worth editing multiple pages just for that when the explanations on said pages should be enough to see that

 

[Agnaa]

Ant isn't the only one in favour of it; GyroNutz and Spinosaurus supported it, plus Nehz_XZX was okay with it.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'm against it lol

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Damage3245

I would very much appreciate your input regarding splitting lower intelligence between "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" (Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, individual Insects), "Animalistic" (Most regular animals), and "High Animalistic" (Highly intelligent animals such as dolphins, chimpanzees, and likely certain octopi, that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats), along with which standards we should have for the distinctions between them.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/vs-battles-to-do-list-help-greatly-needed.139232/post-4994708

I think that this is important, so thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Antvasima]

Your help would also be appreciated, @Agnaa .

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It is really late in my area and I need to get some sleep soon. But I may be able to do some assistance tomorrow.

 

[SamanPatou]

I would very much appreciate your input regarding splitting lower intelligence between "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" (Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, individual Insects), "Animalistic" (Most regular animals), and "High Animalistic" (Highly intelligent animals such as dolphins, chimpanzees, and likely certain octopi, that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats), along with which standards we should have for the distinctions between them.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/vs-battles-to-do-list-help-greatly-needed.139232/post-4994708

I think that this is important, so thanks in advance for any help.

This makes sense and I agree with it.
Upper levels of High Animalistic could include fictional animals and creatures who understand human speech to some degree and have some kind of self awareness without exactly reaching human levels in other aspects.

 

[Antvasima]

It is really late in my area and I need to get some sleep soon. But I may be able to do some assistance tomorrow.

No problem. Thank you for the help.

This makes sense and I agree with it.
Upper levels of High Animalistic could include fictional animals and creatures who understand human speech to some degree and have some kind of self awareness without exactly reaching human levels in other aspects.

Thank you. Those seem like good ideas to me.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I personally don't think the split is needed. Inserting feats for how intelligent the creature is is probably a much more time efficient and easier thing to do.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we are much more specific regarding other areas of intelligence, and there are massive differences between a dolphin and an amoeba, for example.

Thank you for the reply in any case.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

If it wasn't clear I'm in favour of the change (although it can be applied gradually as it's no big deal) as there is indeed vast differences between animal intelligences, but I don't think there can be clear cut boundaries and would probably just be a rough description, which should be fine as all our other intelligence tiers don't have clear cut boundaries either. It's the justification that matters the most.

 

[Antvasima]

If it wasn't clear I'm in favour of the change (although it can be applied gradually as it's no big deal) as there is indeed vast differences between animal intelligences, but I don't think there can be clear cut boundaries and would probably just be a rough description, which should be fine as all our other intelligence tiers don't have clear cut boundaries either. It's the justification that matters the most.

I am fine with rough boundaries. I would greatly appreciate your help with writing draft texts for each of the types, preferably with real world examples included.

 

[Dereck03]

I agree with the change.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I would very much appreciate your input regarding splitting lower intelligence between "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" (Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, individual Insects), "Animalistic" (Most regular animals), and "High Animalistic" (Highly intelligent animals such as dolphins, chimpanzees, and likely certain octopi, that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats), along with which standards we should have for the distinctions between them.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/vs-battles-to-do-list-help-greatly-needed.139232/post-4994708

I think that this is important, so thanks in advance for any help.

I guess the change is fine, not sure if I'll be able to help with a draft though.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the support. It is appreciated.

 

[Dereck03]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

I would very much appreciate your input regarding splitting lower intelligence between "Instinctive"/"Instinctual" (Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, individual Insects), "Animalistic" (Most regular animals), and "High Animalistic" (Highly intelligent animals such as dolphins, chimpanzees, and likely certain octopi, that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats), along with which standards we should have for the distinctions between them.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/vs-battles-to-do-list-help-greatly-needed.139232/post-4994708

I think that this is important, so thanks in advance for any help.

I would still greatly appreciate help with writing proper explanation texts for these lower Intelligence levels.

Here is a first basic draft. Suggestions for improvements would be appreciated.


Instinctive: Beings that are incapable or virtually incapable of conscious thought, and merely carry out simple pre-programmed behaviour patterns. For example, Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, and individual insects.

Animalistic: Beings, such as most animals, that only possess very basic reasoning, awareness, and problem-solving skills.

High Animalistic: Highly intelligent animals that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats. For example, dolphins, chimpanzees, and certain crows and octopi.


I think that "instinctive" seems better to use than "instinctual" based on the information in the following linked page.

Instinctive vs. instinctual

There are many claims about how they differ, but none are consistently borne out in real-world usage, except in psychology, where instinctual things arise out of complex human drives.

grammarist.com

 

[Antvasima]

I would still greatly appreciate help with writing proper explanation texts for these lower Intelligence levels.

Here is a first basic draft. Suggestions for improvements would be appreciated.


Instinctive: Beings that are incapable or virtually incapable of conscious thought, and merely carry out simple pre-programmed behaviour patterns. For example, Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, and individual insects.

Animalistic: Beings, such as most animals, that only possess very basic reasoning, awareness, and problem-solving skills.

High Animalistic: Highly intelligent animals that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats. For example, dolphins, chimpanzees, and certain octopi.


I think that "instinctive" seems better to use than "instinctual" based on the information in the following linked page.

Instinctive vs. instinctual

There are many claims about how they differ, but none are consistently borne out in real-world usage, except in psychology, where instinctual things arise out of complex human drives.

grammarist.com

@DontTalkDT @Jasonsith @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @KLOL506

Do you or other staff members here have any constructive suggestions for improvements?