• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Conceptual Manipulation: Adding a definition

Iamunanimousinthat

Iamunanimousinthat

Messages
4,258
Reaction score
1,977
Can the staff add an objective definition of what a concept in regards to our wiki’s purposes on the conceptual manipulation page? The page doesn’t actually define concepts.

Considering what a concept is, varies a lot in real world outside of powerscaling, I think this will save everyone time as there will be a single objective definition we can use instead of people guesstimating based on the many notions of what is conceptual.
 
Concepts in VSBW are based on essence/whatness (as in fundamental quality that makes something what it is) and universals. That’s why the page says "concept of circle-ness" instead of just "concept of circle", because they’re talking about universals/qualities. So changing the word to form, quality, universal, essence, etc., of circle-ness, the meaning will stay the same, since the main focus is on what makes all circular things circular.
For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness".
 
Last edited:
I can help. Here you go:
vsbattles.fandom.com

Conceptual Manipulation

Conceptual Manipulation is the ability to manipulate, create, and/or destroy abstract concepts. This ability has a variety of applications, ranging from not combat-applicable to incredibly dominating. Conceptual Manipulation involves the manipulation of concepts, and not the universe directly...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
Grabbing_dragon said:
Concepts in VSBW are based on essence/whatness (as in fundamental quality that makes something what it is) and universals. That’s why the page says "concept of circle-ness" instead of just "concept of circle", because they’re talking about universals/qualities. So changing the word to form, quality, universal, essence, etc., of circle-ness, the meaning will stay the same, since the main focus is on what makes all circular things circular.
For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness".
Click to expand...
Yes, I know what concepts are, however, without an actual definition on the page, it becomes pedantic to try to explain to people who then offer their own definition as a counter point.

in fact, the whole debate on there being an essence ability page disproves your point because there are people who don’t think essences are concepts.

It’s high time the term gets actually defined.
 
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
I'm pretty sure the standards for concepts are pretty clear. It either defines what a single existence is, defines all categories of what a certain existence is, and vice versa, or everything in reality sources itself from it, as the original definition.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this. Maybe we can add more examples like that concept of circle-ness but that's about it
 
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
I'm pretty sure the standards for concepts are pretty clear. It either defines what a single existence is, defines all categories of what a certain existence is, and vice versa, or everything in reality sources itself from it, as the original definition.
Click to expand...
I agree but I think it would be good to actually put this on the profile.

I have seen these things stated before and people have argued that concepts are much more than that.

Even from my experience, I was told by someone concepts can only define abstract things and not concrete things.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
I agree but I think it would be good to actually put this on the profile.

I have seen these things stated before and people have argued that concepts are much more than that.

Even from my experience, I was told by someone concepts can only define abstract things and not concrete things.
Click to expand...
Then you misunderstood greatly, even in the given example, the concept of circle-ness is defining a circle (or many), a concrete, physical object (just assume we live in a 2D world). The concepts themselves do need to be abstract
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Even from my experience, I was told by someone concepts can only define abstract things and not concrete things.
Click to expand...
There is a literal picture at the top of the page showing that tables come from the concept of tables. Not to mention, the world object is very clearly stated in the description.
Each concept is linked with its respective "object". In this way, altering the concept will change every object linked to it in the same way the concept itself was changed.
Click to expand...
This seems more like a comprehension issue with the people you're arguing with, and at that point, there's no point in arguing with them at all.
 
MeiouHades said:
Then you misunderstood greatly, even in the given example, the concept of circle-ness is defining a circle (or many), a concrete, physical object (just assume we live in a 2D world). The concepts themselves do need to be abstract
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? I never said concepts aren’t abstract?

You’re being aggressive for no reason.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
As this pertain to site standards, you should've asked for permission and made it a staff thread. I will change it to one, and ask non-staff to ask for permission to comment.
Click to expand...
I’m fine with closing this if I need to get permission first. Or has it been already granted?

Apologies for not going the right way!
 
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
I'm pretty sure the standards for concepts are pretty clear. It either defines what a single existence is, defines all categories of what a certain existence is, and vice versa, or everything in reality sources itself from it, as the original definition.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure a concept doesn't define anything, it's only a form which you can apply a definition
 
The primary definition of what we classify as concepts is listed in the types, as the definition varies depending on type.
But, as far as I see, the definitions provided in the types seem sufficiently clear.
Like, I don't see how the definitions stating that a part of reality is governed by them can be understood as nothing physical participating, for example.
 
DontTalkDT said:
The primary definition of what we classify as concepts is listed in the types, as the definition varies depending on type.
But, as far as I see, the definitions provided in the types seem sufficiently clear.
Like, I don't see how the definitions stating that a part of reality is governed by them can be understood as nothing physical participating, for example.
Click to expand...
Frankly because I have argued that xyz fits the standards listed in the types, and I get told that I must first prove that xyz is a concept in the first place. You are saying by proving xyz fits the standards in a specific type, then it counts?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Frankly because I have argued that xyz fits the standards listed in the types, and I get told that I must first prove that xyz is a concept in the first place. You are saying by proving xyz fits the standards in a specific type, then it counts?
Click to expand...
Generally yes.
Considerations on the metaphysical aspects page may apply. (That is slowly becoming my favourite page)
 
Theglassman12 said:
What exactly needs to be defined here? I’m not seeing much that needs further explanation for concept hax and it’s pretty straightforward on what it means.
Click to expand...
Yes. Is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread? 🙏
 
They last visited today, so it seems reasonable to wait for a response for a while. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
They last visited today, so it seems reasonable to wait for a response for a while. 🙏
Click to expand...
DT has stated that the definition of the Concepts would be the requirements themselves.

I think people can refer back to their post and this thread as well.

Though I do think a note added to the page to something confirming that wouldn't hurt as well. It is up to you guys.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
DT has stated that the definition of the Concepts would be the requirements themselves.

I think people can refer back to their post and this thread as well.

Though I do think a note added to the page to something confirming that wouldn't hurt as well. It is up to you guys.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT

What should we do here? 🙏
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sakimori889
Must a conceptual being be singular?
Replies
5
Views
732
I'm_here_to_teach
I'm_here_to_teach
Fixxed
Concept must necessarily be a Quiddity
Replies
22
Views
5K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Difference Between Conceptual, Information, and Advanced Manipulation.
Replies
14
Views
5K
Hellformer
Hellformer
Thanganimator
Reinhard Concept Manipulation remove (maybe?)
Replies
21
Views
1K
Zabazab
Zabazab
Suimei_The_Phantom
Downgraded Conceptual Manipulation Type-2 Ard Meteor.
Replies
12
Views
752
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
Back
Top