The first thing that I would like to say is that if an object-oriented ontology were to be created in a world, it could not have been done by humans. You can never get outside of your own experience, which means you have only ever seen the objects of other humans and their ideas. If there is no way for humans to escape from their perception and create another one, then we must turn our attention toward the creators instead.
It becomes clear now why such a topic was not addressed by Aristotle or Kant in any great depth; they did not know how! For them, everything had already been created and put into place before they came along – The Forms (such as beauty) existed eternally with God up above the sky on his throne.
Even further, it would not be possible to create an object-oriented ontology even by the divine creator itself. The very concept of a 'divine creator' is flawed, as it always relies on human perception and experience that has already been shaped by its own human-made environment and society.
The thing that God itself would be creating is what we are calling 'God' now, so it's a bit of an issue to consider. If you use the word 'God' then this means that your concept of god has already been created by humans.
An object-oriented ontology would have to be created by a superhuman being, one that is not bound by human experience. It is the only way that we could ever create an entirely new and unbiased view of the world.
This superhuman being must be one that is not born from a human society, but rather a non-human society. The only way for it to have an entirely unbiased view of the world would be to see the objects and events in this universe as they are without any sort of influence by humans.
It would have to be a non-human, superhuman being that sees the world and its objects without the human prejudice of experience. It must see things as they really are in their most fundamental sense – it would need to transcend all human concepts.
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.
