Searching for GOD...

[Udayana]

It doesn't matter whether you are talking about people who flunked university or people who weren't successful after university - my issue was you linking this failure to the (in)ability of individuals to afford to pay for study.

Seems to me you just misunderstood her - that she was saying that people who did not go to university because they could not afford it, would not have been guaranteed success, in fact were likely to be just as "mediocre" as most graduates, even if they had attended university (paid or on a grant).   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You did exactly that - in a single sentence.

Perhaps that wasn't your intention, in which case a retraction is in order, but the sentence:

"... many people, who even if they had the funds and opportunity to go into higher education, would probably still not have the nature / nurture to become very successful."

clearly links the success (whether that is actually at university or thereafter) with the (in)ability to afford to pay for study.

No it doesn't. The success and whether they can afford to pay are 2 separate issues.

You do seem to have trouble understanding what you have actually written.

Nope, I'm fine with what I have written and stand by it. If you want to interpret it to mean something else, that's up to you. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Seems to me you just misunderstood her - that she was saying that people who did not go to university because they could not afford it, would not have been guaranteed success, in fact were likely to be just as "mediocre" as most graduates, even if they had attended university (paid or on a grant).

Correct - thank you Udayana

[ProfessorDavey]

Seems to me you just misunderstood her - that she was saying that people who did not go to university because they could not afford it, would not have been guaranteed success, in fact were likely to be just as "mediocre" as most graduates, even if they had attended university (paid or on a grant).

Seems to me that she was was clearly equating success with ability to afford university. If she was taking about everyone then "who even if they had the funds and opportunity to go into higher education" would be entirely superfluous in this sentence.

But of course if that isn't what VG meant, she can retract her comment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Correct - thank you Udayana

Then you can retract your comment as at best it is clearly lacks clarity.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it doesn't. The success and whether they can afford to pay are 2 separate issues.

Then why equate them in a single sentence? Indeed, why mention ability to afford the education at all.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then you can retract your comment as at best it is clearly lacks clarity.

No thanks. I stand by my comment and its meaning.

[ProfessorDavey]

No thanks. I stand by my comment and its meaning.

So you are therefore linking success with ability to fund education. I thought you claimed you weren't - that they were two separate issues. You cannot have it both ways VG.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then why equate them in a single sentence? Indeed, why mention ability to afford the education at all.

Asked and answered - see my reply #46294  2nd para.

My post was responding to your comment about people who can't afford to go to university. So I said even if they could have afforded it, there is no automatic assumption they would have been very successful because most people in the world are mediocre and only a few people become very successful, regardless of  whether privileges and advantages are afforded to them or not.

By the way, to me being mediocre is not a sign of failure. I am happy with my mediocre successes in life - I have no inclination to put in the work and time required to be very successful at something. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So you are therefore linking success with ability to fund education. I thought you claimed you weren't - that they were two separate issues. You cannot have it both ways VG.

If you want to interpret it that way, up to you. I am indifferent as to how you interpret it. I have already clarified my meaning.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No speculation - at the time when he got a gong, honours in the civil service were granted depending on the seniority of rank achieved. Of course most civil servants never got close to the seniority required for an honour, so to achieve an MBE demonstrates that Sunak's grandfather was pretty senior in the civil service, albeit there would be a few more senior grades above him. This from a review of the honours system makes it clear that no other criteria were applied for the award of a gong other than attaining a senior rank. This was proposing changes, but the review was from well after Sunak's grandfather received his gong:

"In the home civil service, the diplomatic service and the armed forces, there is a clear correlation between the level of honour and the grade or rank of the recipient. Hence K/Ds go to those who reach the top grade or rank of their service – DSl, four-star and Grade 1/lA – and only rarely to those who do not.

A recent review by Sir Michael Quinlan found this to be frequently “criticised in the media and elsewhere as “automaticity”, with an implication that awards are insufficiently related to merit.” His answer to this criticism was that “promotion to rank is itself made on merit assessed by careful regular procedures over considerable spans of time”.

So he only got the MBE after 30 years as a tax collector in the civil service. So it doesn't seem like starting a job in the Inland Revenue office in Leicester in 1968 could be considered particularly senior or privileged compared to the rest of the population of Britain.

I wouldn't consider someone working in the Inland Revenue and his book keeper wife to be people of privilege. And an MBE after 30 years of working in the same department of the civil service doesn't seem to be an exceptional achievement. He was presumably diligent, responsible and good at his job in order to eventually reach a senior position after 30 years working in England.

Many Asians opted to work in the civil service as they liked the perceived  job security - it was considered more difficult to lose your job in the civil service compared to the private sector. So you could just keep plugging away and rising up the ranks, without having to take the risks inherent in the private sector.

[Nearly Sane]

Seems to me you just misunderstood her - that she was saying that people who did not go to university because they could not afford it, would not have been guaranteed success, in fact were likely to be just as "mediocre" as most graduates, even if they had attended university (paid or on a grant).

Certainly that's my reading of it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

A "conscious controller" would (presumably) have to do some thinking of its own. You're incredulous about how a single, integrated mind could do that unaided, so you've conjured up a separate, stand-alone conscious controller to do the job without bothering to explain why that conscious controller wouldn't also need a separate, stand-alone conscious controller of its own to control its thoughts and so on through infinite regress. If ever you were honest enough to try to demonstrate your claim that it's impossible for conscious beings to think for themselves (ie to justify your personal incredulity) just relocating the "problem" to another entity wouldn't do that.   

First, I make no apologies for bringing this up again for it is central to what it means to be human.

The central concept of control is that there must be an ultimate source which is capable of exerting control.  Without such source, there can be no control - just inevitable fall out from previous events over which there is no control - just physically defined reactions.  This is why the materialistic model breaks down - control as we know it cannot exist in a material model driven my material reactions to past events.  You may cite examples of man made machines which can enact some form of control - but the ultimate source exerting this control emanates from the human mind which designed the machine.  Similarly you may cite some examples of control occurring in animal behaviour - but this apparent control would be explained by instinctive reactions built up from survival objective in the evolutionary process.

Human behaviour displays abundant evidence of our ability to exert conscious control over what we do, think or say.  Such behaviour cannot be explained away as entirely driven by material reactions to past events beyond our control.  You are in control - you do not need another controller to control what you think.  The ultimate source of control is you.  This ability is a wonderful gift - use it well.

[Sebastian Toe]

You are in control -

.....not if you are hypnotised!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

First, I make no apologies for bringing this up again…

Why don’t you apologise for that, what with your multiple mistakes in reasoning having been corrected so many times without rebuttals?

…for it is central to what it means to be human.

Bad reasoning isn’t “central to what it means to be human”.

The central concept of control is that there must be an ultimate source which is capable of exerting control.  Without such source, there can be no control - just inevitable fall out from previous events over which there is no control - just physically defined reactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

(Yet again.)

This is why the materialistic model breaks down - control as we know it cannot exist in a material model driven my material reactions to past events.  You may cite examples of man made machines which can enact some form of control - but the ultimate source exerting this control emanates from the human mind which designed the machine.  Similarly you may cite some examples of control occurring in animal behaviour - but this apparent control would be explained by instinctive reactions built up from survival objective in the evolutionary process.

The materialistic model doesn’t break down at all - it’s just at odds with your mistake of assuming the way you “control” your decision-making at an experiential level must also therefore map to the underlying reality. It doesn’t. Indeed it can’t.   

Human behaviour displays abundant evidence of our ability to exert conscious control over what we do, think or say.  Such behaviour cannot be explained away as entirely driven by material reactions to past events beyond our control.  You are in control - you do not need another controller to control what you think.  The ultimate source of control is you.  This ability is a wonderful gift - use it well.

It displays “our ability to exert conscious control over what we do, think or say” at a superficial level, yes – but that model collapses very quickly when it collides with reason and evidence.   

All you’ve done here is to return to exactly the same mistakes you’ve made countless times, and that have been thoroughly demolished without you even attempting to address the falsifications you’re given.

Why are you bothering with it?   

[Alan Burns]

It displays “our ability to exert conscious control over what we do, think or say” at a superficial level, yes – but that model collapses very quickly when it collides with reason and evidence.   

Your problem is that the only "reasoning and evidence" you are willing to consider is entirely based on the materialistic "cause and effect" scenario which will inevitably lead to the foregone conclusion that our conscious freedom to control does not exist.

Why can't you accept the abundant evidence out there which indicates that the results of what we do, think or say comprise far more than what can be achieved by inevitable reactions beyond our conscious control?  Are you afraid to admit that there may be more to life than material reactions?

Consider these two scenarios -
A) God does not exist - therefore we can do whatever we want because nothing really matters.

B) God does exist - therefore we can't just do whatever we want because everything matters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your problem is that the only "reasoning and evidence" you are willing to consider is entirely based on the materialistic "cause and effect" scenario which will inevitably lead to the foregone conclusion that our conscious freedom to control does not exist.

No, your problem is that if you don’t like reasoning and evidence as the methods to verify your various claims and assertions then it’s your job to propose some other methods to do that job. So far you’ve never even suggested that you’re aware that that's your problem, but it’s still your problem nonetheless. As it is trying to use the methods of reason and evidence but consistently incompetently leaves you stranded in a rhetorical no-man's-land.     

Why can't you accept the abundant evidence out there which indicates that the results of what we do, think or say comprise far more than what can be achieved by inevitable reactions beyond our conscious control?

Because you haven't told us what you think that supposed evidence is (whether "abundant" or otherwise). If you think otherwise, why don’t you finally tell us what it is rather than just assert it to exist? And no, "because that’s the way it feels” isn’t evidence of an underlying reality at all. Try to remember this.

Are you afraid to admit that there may be more to life than material reactions?

I never have been “afraid to admit” that there may be anything (your god and leprechauns included). Your problem here though is that you have the burden of proof to take you from a “may be” to an “is”.

Good luck with it though.

Consider these two scenarios -

A) God does not exist - therefore we can do whatever we want because nothing really matters.

That’s both a non sequitur and an argumentum ad consequentiam. Two fallacies for the price of one. Well done!

B) God does exist - therefore we can't just do whatever we want because everything matters.

See above. There are lots of reasons for not doing whatever we want that don’t require a god, and even if that wasn’t the case liking or not liking the consequences of a claim tells you nothing about whether or not the claim is true.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?   

[Sebastian Toe]

  Are you afraid to admit that there may be more to life than material reactions?

Are you afraid to admit that material reactions may be all that life is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you afraid to admit that material reactions may be all that life is?

If you are right then nothing actually matters.
If Alan's right...........

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are right then nothing actually matters.
If Alan's right...........

You've just repeated AB's double fallacy (non sequitur and argumentum ad conseqeuntiam). Quite an achievement in so few words...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

If you are right then nothing actually matters.
If Alan's right...........

Ignoring the argument from consequences just supposing you heard an argument that made you change your mind and you lost your belief in God. Would you then think it ok to steal, murder and rape because nothing matters?

[Outrider]

If you are right then nothing actually matters.

Nothing intrinsically matters, but that doesn't mean that nothing matters to us.

O.

[Enki]

Alan thinks that if God does not exist, we can do whatever we want because nothing matters.

Doesn't apply to me. I have no reason to think that any god exists, but lots of things matter to me and there is no way I can do whatever I want.

So, I've considered his two scenarios and found them wanting. Try again, Alan, but perhaps with more awareness this time.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you are right then nothing actually matters.
If Alan's right...........

Pish.

[torridon]

Your problem is that the only "reasoning and evidence" you are willing to consider is entirely based on the materialistic "cause and effect" scenario which will inevitably lead to the foregone conclusion that our conscious freedom to control does not exist.

Why can't you accept the abundant evidence out there which indicates that the results of what we do, think or say comprise far more than what can be achieved by inevitable reactions beyond our conscious control? 

There is no such evidence, never mind 'abundant'.  It might be surprising, what outcomes can arise from undirected insentient processes, but that does not translate to 'impossible'.  In a nutshell :

Suprpising phenomenon observed, seemingly inexplicable

Reaction 1 : I can't understand this, therefore 'God'
Reaction 2 : I can't understand this, how interesting, let's try to figure it out

Reaction 2 has brought us the modern world
Reaction 1 has kept us back from advancing our understanding