From "A History of Transhumanist Thought" by Nick Bostrom:

"In his famous 1784 essay 'What Is Enlightenment?' , Kant summed it up as follows:

'Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own intelligence!'"

This sounds to me to also be another argument for free will. The source paper in PDF format:

http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf

Free will yes, but care not to forget collaboration and prior (other's) experience. Intelligence is not the only evolutionary unit. Also, the species is important and not just the individual.

Rick, do you think that free will will ever be possible knowing the nature of human competitiveness and intraspecies dominance traits? Can free will in isolation be of any value, outside of self-satisfaction? E.g. can a political prisoner have any free will value?

Kant has nothing to say over transhumanism or enlightenment. His usage of the term enlightenment does not resonate with what people today recognize as enlightenment. Just look at his definition!

And be forewarned, Nick Bostrom is a third-rate philosopher wannabe. But don't take my word for it. If you read his essays, you'll probably reach the same conclusion.

If an Oxford faculty member isn't up to your standards, who, in your opinion, is a first rate philosopher?

You like Oxford, don't you Rick? Last time I was there I was pick-pocketed, but I have no bad feelings.

Re: Nick Bostrom, I'm always wary of youngsters (he's about 30) who are experts on everything. I do think he is too individualistic rather than socialistic wrt enlightenment.

Rick, please confirm, you recently gave the impression that you had given up on expanded consciousness, yet you revitalize transhumanism here. Do you think they are not connected? Or do you think that the latter could (is) happening prior to the other? Or what? Aren't both possible mechanisms towards enlightenment?

From Gross Mental to Supramental

The Gross mental plane is the level of intellect which is caught up in and affected by the physical level of being, the Concrete Mind.
The Subtle mental plane is the level of intellect which is involved with emotional and psychic realities. This is the level of what Jung called the Ego -- the conceptual consciousness or the sense of limited self.
In this respect, the four Jungian Ego functions of thinking, feeling, intuition and sensation are different transformations of the same mental nature.
The Higher Causal plane is represented in Buddhist cosmology by reference to dhyana or samadhi, each corresponding to Formless Reality, or the reality beyond the form.
The Supercausal mental plane is the plane which transcends conditions -- it is Light, or Shunya.
No man can become a thinker of significance without entering the Subtle mental, and further, the Supermind.
Brain is the physical plane. Mind is the subtle plane. Higher mind is in Silence -- there is Higher Truth hidden beyond senses and thinking, beyond the reliance on the empirical data of senses.
The Silence of the mind is the door to the Supermind.

Consciousness is born at the Causal plane or at the level of the archetypes...
Beyond that level there is no consciousness -- just pure Intelligence, pure vibration, the symphony of the spheres ...

HI, Dianah !

There�s a beautiful website: http://www.starchildglobal.com
Check it out !

Guest, are you saying that Dianah is Celia Fenn from http://www.starchildglobal.com/aboutcelia.html ? How would you know this?

How enlightened is a person who doesn't even know that, due to astronomical changes, the astrological signs have changed? The stars (astrological) are about as real as the stars you see when hit on the head. But crystals, well I have to admit to hearing the radio on a crystal set.

Let's stick to science, evidence and imagination, not witchcraft, anecdotes and hallucination.

"The senses, the mind and the intelligence veil the real knowledge...
The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses, intelligence is still higher than the mind, and the soul is even higher than the intelligence.
Thus knowing oneself to be transcendental to material senses, mind and intelligence, one attains the Higher Self and the Knowledge of the Absolute."

Bhagavad Gita

Who is the Knower ? Who is the Seer ? Who is the Doer ?

Are these Enigma lyrics?

How did I give the impression I had given up on expanded consciousness? Consciousness is good and more is better. According to Edward O. Wilson (inventor of socio-biology) in his book Consilience, the human race has stopped evolving. However, transhumanism is still a possibility in isolated pockets, especially if space colonization ever becomes real.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it it, infinite.
For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern."

William Blake

so true...one must move into the 'cave' in which to expand perception, through underderstanding that which creates the "chinks" within the cave.

We do not see the world as it is, but as we are, through the narrow chinks of our concepts.
Concepts stand in the way of transcendental experience. We have to get out of the confining, binding concepts, to get out of the cavern, to have a vast view of the world.

The main difference between western and eastern approaches, Dianah, is precisely this: going into the mind, unravelling the mind ( like in psychoanalysis ) and transcending the mind altogether,
getting free from the mind.
When you enter the world of Zen there is no mind -- it is freedom from the mind; the chatter, the noise of the mind has simply ceased, hence the door of the Being is open, the door of Eternity.
Dhyana simply means a state of no-mind -- it is a deep silence in which all thoughts have disappeared; there are no ripples on the lake of consciousness and it functions like a mirror reflecting all that is.
One can go on unravelling, disentangling the mind endlessly ( the western approach ), or one can get out of the bottle of the mind ... like in a Zen koan -- The goose is out !

Rainbow Energies -- http://www.crystalinks.com/rainbows.html

From the site: "Reality is created by sound, light, and color frequencies creating grids - a rainbow bridge if you will - that allows human consciousness to eXperience through spiraling consciousness levels of awareness based on the patterns of creation".

This is enlightening how?

Spiritual Intelligence -- http://www.spiritualintelligence.com/spirituality.htm

Spiritual Power -- http://vitalcoaching.com/spirit/spiritual_power.htm

your discussion of enlightenment is paradoxical to itself. if you truly wanted to find out what it was you would search for yourself. you search for a title not for what it actually is. "Enlighten the people generally and tyranny and oppresion of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day"-Thomas Jefferson We know that enlightenment is something we should search and strive for so why do we dwindle on topics of what it truly is when we could look for ourselves and the facade of the word 'enlightenment' would drift away and we would, ironically, be enlightened. talking about it may expand thought, but it shall never answer your question. i know that this is probably taking away from the point of philisophical issues and debates but truly, the point of philosophy is to philosophize about issues that man may never find the answer to. mon dieu

Oh, come on, the point of philosophy is that humans WANT to find answers to questions and hence use their brains to attempt to explain phenomena, especially (nowadays), but not exclusively, scientific. Obviously some questions cannot have definitive answers as they, for example, might rely on human opinion that is diverse and related to upbringing, education, intelligence(!*?), state of health, religion, sex, age, etc, etc, that cannot be standardized, or even visualised so, whatever vast period of civilization time is imagined. And, of course, don't forget that not all questions are as big as 'what is consciousness'. Many (most?) are small but answers to them as a multitude play an incredibly important role in human well-being and progress. And more, the inching forward of knowledge and understanding, over time produces more satisfactory explanations and understanding.

Do you understand the reason why higher (research) degrees are most often still called PhD's, whatever area of research they encompass? It is because of the philosophical nature of enquiry, the looking for explanations for natural (eg biological, cosmological) and artificial (eg AI) phenomena (debatable whether these latter exist as a fundamental category if they are the result of the output of natural phenomena, such as human activity), the solutions to issues that might enable the use or application of phenomena (eg ethics) an so on. Unfortunately, philosophical methods are becoming more and more rigid and stifling as they are taught with the rest of the mainstream, that has no time for imagination (what I like to call the "daydream approach"). Your comment above adds to this restrictive practice and you need to learn more about human nature and human ability. It is as though you have a diminished philosophical ability as one might find with a theological approach to the world and humankind.

I won't even try to reply to your comment through a pure versus applied approach in human enquiry, that is itself so important, otherwise we might not even be communicating using the very medium we are.

I agree with Hey Hey. This post is utter nonsense! If you are incapable of assimilating contradictions which belie greater truths or of appreciating the point of worthwhile philosophical dialogue, then you should go HERE

Hey, what did Barney do to you? ( )

I merely found it sad that you should waste your breath on such a topic. ironically i was trying to enlighten you. just because im nine does not give you any reason to associate me with 'barney'. i was trying to show you how pointless your efforts are. most philosophy generally is, but at least some philosophy is used to enlighten people. it is used to strengthen their beliefs and calm their inner soul. you do neither.

Being a child you should know that you still have a lot of learning, experiencing, and growing up to do before passing judgment on others. Presuming any type of enlightenment as a child is naive.

why is it that because the words that were spoken have come out of the mouth of a child, that they are disregarded. as for learning i have commited to memory some of the major works of Augustine, Aristotle, Voltaire, Aquinas, Locke and so on. i have experienced more in my short life than i have wished to. i had turned to philosophy in order to understand the trials and tribulations that i have undergone. i turned to philosophy for... enlightenment. the kind of enlightenment of which you speak of, you shall never reach. You yourselves are searching for self enlightment. this enlightenment will give you no void, it shall only give you peace of mind which is more than most of us can hope for. this pure consciousness of which you speak of, this state of such resolute unthought in which the mind can look upon, but not immerse itself in, the vast expanse of knowledge, seems to be a parody of the rooted western civilizations views. keep in mind these people devoted their lives to finding this type of enlightenment, and i have a hint that you are not, nor will ever, be willing to do this. you are trying to grasp the knowledge that an entire civilization devoted their lives to for thousands of years. divest yourself of this thought that you may understand what enlightenment is, and maybe just maybe, you will be one step closer to reaching that inner peace that has also been awarded the title enlightenment. as for the growing up i have to do, maybe in some sense i am as grown up as i'll ever be. Maybe it takes a childs naivity to truly understand something. However lucid dream, you are right in the sense that i am still young. i shall conglomerate knowledge and experience as greedily as the thirsting soil will soak up the rain. i will comb through the knowledge and experience i have already obtained in order to better understand it. but i was not passing judgement for who am i to judge another. i was only hoping that perhaps you would see that in order to find enlightenment, it would be better to look inside yourself instead of on the words of another.

You're still not convinced. But keep working on it, I'm sure you'll get there.

If you read any of the many posts I've made over the subject, you would know where I stand and not set up straw men and false arguments. You have a lot of learning and experiencing to do, regardless of how much you think you've experienced. You believe you are the only one who understands, and I'm here to tell you that you're naive and foolish, but by all means, persist in your quest. Hopefully your eyes will open at some point so long as you don't always remain focused on your ego.

Your knowledge about science and/or philosophy shows an intelect that's above average. Your ego, on the other hand, is getting on the way of your wisdom. Wisdom is something you can't learn from a book. It comes with a life-time of experience. The sooner you learn this the better. Having said that, I find your posts amusing; because they come from a child, mainly.

i'm glad that you're so easily amused. as for my ego, bite me, what ego? i stated things as i saw them, the truth is never vain, and perception is reality. i perceived something which is my reality which makes it truth and the truth is never egotistical. i may not have acquired much of this fabled 'wisdom' yet, but the only way to gain wisdom is to live right, which i will continue to do. as for what i 'think' i've experience, well i've loved and lost, i've been mad happy sad rejoiceful depressed and most other emotions you can name. i dont know if my intellect is actually above average because any fool can memorize something. the way that fool processes that information though will set him apart. maybe the way i have processed it isnt very good. perhaps i am stupid and my views are stupid. however, i'll stand by what i believe. as for the straw men and false arguments i have set up maybe it is just that *you* are the one who has not yet opened his eyes. i realize that i may not be able to battle with you on the finer points of transhumanism but i can tell you what i believe. if the arguments i made sounded egotistical i am very sorry. once again i will state that i believe enlightenment is an inner journey that one cannot find on the words of another. look in yourself, and maybe just maybe you will find that my words may be wiser than they appear. (said with no ego whatsoever)

an utterly vacuous statement



*yawn*

you hippocritical narcissistic peice of horseflesh! can you please define hipocrisy for me? because you are the epitome of it. you told me to open my eyes and you close your own to everything else. you call me egotistical but look at your words. enlightenment-A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. -to give spiritual or intellectual information to. there lucid_dreams is that vague enough for even your tunneled vision and completely blocked off mind to grab a hold of and mold into your own picture even if that was not what was intended of the mold i just gave. you like to grab the pieces of a puzzle, never look at what the picture is supposed to be, mash them together until you can tell yourself that they fit, and you refuse to think that maybe a different peice of the puzzle goes there.

Let's stay on topic, Leto et al.

He started it! Welcome, Leto. I hope you stick around for awhile and 'enlighten' us with your unique perspective. You're a smart little guy. Hope you use it WISEly.

Indeed it is a good argument for the free will.

Isn`t Kant trying to guide us by his understanding of Enlightenment ?
Was he enlightened ? In his statement he refers to strong will and courage to use own`s own intelligence -- that is not Enlightenment.

agreed

Good to see this hasnt turned into a flame war.

Anyways, I dont find that age is reminicent of intelligence or wisdom, it is the experiences that happen that are cause for wisdom. Think of how long it takes for enlightenment, what a fraction of a second? think of how long it takes to die? It is within these things we find that it is not the amount of time that has passed, but what one does with the time that decides what insights one gains and what wisdom one obtains. A man could easily spend his whole life meditating but what does he meditate on? what does he contemplate? Maturity comes not from the age of which one is but the experiences that have occured over that lifetime. I am reminded of Leonardo Da Vinci, a man who by the time he was twenty he had already surpassed his master, the greatest painter in Florence at the time. Now think of all the other painters, all the other people who may have been painting their entire life but have gotten no where, it is what one does, not for how long one does it for that determines such things.

Hmm! There are things that I wouldn't do today, which I thought when I was younger that I would one day do . BASE jumping, for example. I never did, but up until five years ago or so when I parachuted for the first time, I thought I would one day do. But, after my awful parachuting experience, I became WISER enough to know that BASE jumping is never going to be in my 'things to do' list. I didn't have to experience it to become wiser about the experience.

ive met 8 year olds who are more mature than 25 year olds, their are kids in third world countries who are 13 and caring and providing for an entire family. This isnt always the case but if you are going to base opinions about someone because of their age, you might as well base it off of their sex and race too.

Good reasoning, maximus ! It�s good to know that you can be wise.

I agree in a way with Kant for the definition of Enlightenment, i would like add that each human being has the potentiality to become enlightened , because the "science" e.g. "savoir" is written in his heart.Some people get the opportunity to discover this "written tablet" in their heart and reaching enlightenment.The enlightenment is not necessarily a matter of academic education, many illiterate persons could be enlightened. With enlightenment we can have total Independency, we can judge everything by ourselves without the help of any book or reference to any philospher or consulting others : it is the absolute freedom !

I believe that the predominate writer of philosophical views on elightenment seems right now to be Kant. So on that note Kant's essay of what is enlightenment does seem to in a round-a-bout way be saying that enlightenment is freedom. I believe he is saying that we are to be our own leaders, we are to be the master of ourself, in order to find enlightenment. This should be taken in both theory and practice. I believe Kant also said, and please correct me if i'm wrong, "Freedom is found in no form of government but in the heart of the free man". Kant's entire view of enlightenment is freedom and how freedom is something self discovered. Inclination is directly opposite to freedom and we act freely when we rid of the inclinations that we put upon ourselves. So there for i believe that Kant is saying that enlightenment is the lack of inclinition, it is the state where one is free to think about the views of the world without morals or ethics getting in the way. It is a state where one is totally at peace with themselves and everything that they believe in. Enlightenment is freedom of oneself that leads to the freedom in oneself. It is when all ties are broken with things outside of oneself.

Consider:-

Gardeners sow their seeds.
As they grow, they prick-out the weaklings and dispose of them. Sensible and productive!

Humans sow their seeds.
As they grow, they look after the children however deformed they may be. Civilised and moral!

Are gardeners or humans more enlightened.

(disregard the fact that gardeners are humans because it does not affect the principle of the question).

Depends on ones perception, what if the weeds to one gardener are the flowers to another? Look at Steven Hawkins, he is technically inferior yet he surpassed this with humans most gifted trait, the ability to adapt to changing conditions in rapid periods of time. So prehaps out of those thorns will grow a rose?

I have edited my post to refer to weaklings (from weedlings). This is what I meant.

just a note. i did not intend "enlightenment" to mean "born again"!

It sounds to me like stating the bleeding obvious. But then, a lot of
philosophers like to do that (and call it enlightenment).