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

Al Steuart's Profile

Al Steuart's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Al Steuart

More Discussions by Al Steuart

Latest Comments by Al Steuart


Al Steuart's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by Al Steuart

Regarding Codonya's reply to me (#58), I have posted a message in the forum "The God Delusion Book Discussion" that concerns the topic of "Language: Validity and Accuracy" so any discussion of my comment regarding words not having the power to generate feelings (emotions or thoughts or actions, for that matter)in a person may continue in that forum - since I see statements in Dawkins book The God Delusion that communicate something similar to what Dennett communicated regarding those "warm" feelings and that "morale" being uplifted.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Thanks for your feedback!

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:52:00 UTC | #7426


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


Al Steuart's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Al Steuart

I appreciate you are feeling happy, I assume, that you survived and are still among us living organisms and I appreciate your thanking not some "spirit" but thanking the persons whose behaviors increased your chances of continuing to live. Regarding those persons who were praying for you, at least, I assume, they were thinking about you. If they were praying to the Christian God for your recovery from this event, I am wondering if any of them considered that this God, if omnipotent and omniscient, was surely aware of your event and, presumably, knew the outcome no matter what the prayers - wouldn't a "god" know that?

Regarding your statement "These messages from my family and from friends around the world have been literally heart-warming in my case, and I am grateful for the boost in morale (to truly manic heights, I fear!) that it has produced in me," I am not understanding how anything you read or heard could have "warmed" your heart or how "it" (what you saw or heard) can produce any activity in your brain whatsoever. No word, no image, no sound ever enters your brain, does it? What does occur in those specialized neurons with which the light "waves" (in case of the eyes)and sound "waves" (in case of the ears)come into contact? Although I do not know you, as Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, I was expecting a bit more accurate use of language than used in the phase I quoted - know what I mean? I appreciate you felt something when you heard or read some words persons spoke or wrote, but I am thinking whatever you felt was the result of some patterns of thinking of your own that your brain used to interpret what you were seeing (reading) or hearing - so it was those patterns of thinking of yours that produced the feelings, not the words read or heard - wasn't it? "It" (the words read or heard) did not "produce" the boost in morale - "it" could not - why? So now I am wondering what thoughts you might be thinking about these thoughts I've shared.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:25:00 UTC | #7122

More Comments by Al Steuart