This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.



Al Steuart's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by Al Steuart

Regarding Codonya's comment (#22) to my comment (#21), I appreciate the comments, but I regret you expressed your evaluation of my comment rather than responding to the questions I posed to Dennett. Since Dennett chose to publicly express his thoughts about his heart attack experience and his not changing his belief in the existence of no gods, then I did assume that his thinking processes were not affected by his heart attack and I did assume that his statements about some words read or heard "warming" his heart and those same words producing a "boost" in his morale were reflections of his thoughts about how feelings (and thoughts) are created. I was not and am not now thinking that Dennett shared his thoughts for the purpose of getting expressions of "sympathy" or "get well" wishes or additional "prayers." I am thinking that in his thoughts shared he was communicating that he "believes" (thinks) that words read or heard have some magical power to generate thoughts and feelings in others. I am wondering if you might be thinking similar thoughts? I think DE Ford (comment $ 41)does think that words (or actions) seen or heard do have some sort of power to generate various thoughts and feelings in others. Because "B" follows "A" then "A" must be the "cause" of "B" - I do hope we agree that such a pattern of thinking has been identified as a "fallacy" in thinking? If desired, perhaps we could continue a discussion of this in some forum at this web site?

Regarding my asking a "provocative" question, since I am thinking no question can be a "provocative" question (no question can "provoke" any particular thought or feeling in another), then I am thinking that by that statement you are communicating that you created some thoughts of your own about that question - the thoughts I shared did not "provoke" those thoughts you had - you created those thoughts yourself - didn't you? Also, of course, I am thinking questions cannot be "interesting" (either more or less)or "basic," but certainly you may create your own level of "interest" (some pattern of thinking?) in any question or not and you may evaluate any question asked according to your own patterns of thinking - but your doing so does not make that question have any characteristic that one might label "basic" - does it? I am understanding that you did not like my question - an expression of your own preferences - not a description of some characteristic of the question posed. Regarding my expression of my expectations, I am thinking that as long as I don't violate the quidelines for posting messages at this website, then I do have a "right" to express my expectations about any person in any position - and so do you. Certainly no person has any obligation to meet my expectations, but surely I can express my thinking that some person does not meet my expectations in some thought shared, just as you have a right to communicate that I did not meet your expectations in the thoughts I shared. Regarding my being "polite" or not, I am understanding that to mean that you did not like the thoughts I shared - I appreciate your letting me know that. Still, I did expect and I do expect a Director of Cognitive Studies to pay attention to the degree of validity and accuracy of any thought, shared in public or not. That is my expectation and, as far as I know (which, of course, may not be "far" enough), I have every "right" to express that expectation - Dennett has no obligation to meet my expectations. Regarding my "coming off" as "bright and condescending," again I am thinking you are communicating your own interpretation of my shared thoughts that you read - please note I think I cannot be "bright" or "condescending" - I can only be a human being who was thinking and still is thinking that at this web site all of us are focused on using critical thinking to evaluate the degree of validity and accuracy of our patterns of thinking - those publicly shared and those not publicly shared - aren't we? Of course, it may be I do not understand the intentions of the person or persons who created this website - if I don't, then I am assuming they will let me know.

Again, if you wish to continue a discussion of any of these thoughts I've shared, perhaps we could do so in another forum - I am thinking this forum might not be the forum to continue this discussion.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Al Steuart
Wofford Hts., CA US 93285
GMT -8

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:05:00 UTC | #7253