How do you define "is-ness", as stated by Aldous Huxley?
Is-ness is the property of something that exists. Take, for example, a table. Clearly it is because it possesses this property that we can say this table 'is', that it has existence beyond being merely a concept or an idea in our imagination.
It follows that this table 'is' because it stands in an is-to-be relationship to a being, i.e., human beings. This is the case for all things; they exist because they stand in such relationships.
Clearly, then, is-ness can be reduced to relationships between beings. In other words, there can be no 'is-ness' with out a being that possesses such is-ness.
For example, the is-ness of a rock can be reduced to relationships between human beings and rocks. The is-ness of 'rock' depends on the relationship that exists between a being (a human) and another being (the rock).
This also implies that there can be no such thing as 'is-ness' outside of a relationship. If we were to remove all beings from the universe, then nothing would exist.
Therefore, there can be no such thing as 'is-ness' independent of beings. Let us apply this to how we define the word is-ness in relation to Aldous Huxley's definition.
Log in:
You are getting an AI to generate text on different topics.
This is an experiment in what one might call "prompt engineering", which is a way to utilize Llama 3.1 405b, a neural network trained by Meta.
Llama is a language model. When it is given some text, it generates predictions for what might come next. It is remarkably good at adapting to different contexts, as defined by a prompt (in this case, hidden), which sets the scene for what type of text will be generated.
Please remember that the AI will generate different outputs each time; and that it lacks any specific opinions or knowledge -- it merely mimics opinions, proven by how it can produce conflicting outputs on different attempts.
Feel free to share interesting outputs to /r/philosopherAI on Reddit.