Very sad for me, he was one of my favorite thinkers and his books were the few that made me feel smarter after having read them. His thinking tools remain a great aid to my thinking. The reason for this post though, is to mention that Darwin also died on April 19th.

> I was on the team that brought him to Google

Authors @ Google? Was this his visit to the Kirkland office?

If so, I was one of the perhaps 5 (?) people who had lunch with him. I was astonished that more Googlers didn't seem the least bit interested in hanging out with Dan Dennett given the opportunity.

He seemed interested in my journey breaking free of religious indoctrination and what part his writings had in that. He said he had never heard of Joseph Campbell being the first step out. We had a brief discussion on how recognizing the universality of religious motifs can lead one to start asking the initial question, "What if my specific religion isn't so special after all?"

I asked him the admittedly-ambiguous question along the lines of, "If Google were to build something that seems to express intentional agency, would we have an ethical obligation relating to it?" I suspect his curt answer of "Yes" was him just being polite with a clueless armchair philosopher asking silly questions.

Then there was the Dawkins visit to Google Kirkland some time later. The failure to set up an audio system that didn't have an echo made me sad. Not sure why we couldn't have just kept the audio engineer present for the actual discussion. Later on Dawkins proceeded to walk through the line at the cafeteria backwards, but everyone seemed cordial enough regardless. That one dude pushing himself in Dawkins' face monopolizing all his time was obnoxious.

That whole program really jumped the shark when they later invited Fonzie to come talk about his children's book.

Mt View

didn't lunch with him, unfortunately

He was nothing if not honest. Truly the best of the New Athiests and deserving of almost Rorty-esque fandom.

Could you explain his answer?

My guess: Dennett took it to mean that his exposition wasn't clear enough to the layman first time round and was disappointed by this.

C.f. the famous quote attributed to Einstein "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.". (Does anyone know if he actually said anything like that?)

Could also mean it ended up for this reader as being entertainment. Wanting to read again because it is joyful.

In terms of learning I can’t read a book and remember it all. I would need to apply it.

That's what I meant: there was so much to think about that I'd gain a whole lot by reading it again.

What he meant: well, he's dead now, isn't he?