Nice analysis! You, sir/ma'am, are on the right track.

I would loudly and proudly shout for help and expect it. Why suffer in silence unnecessarily when there is help available and if there is none then I would be camping nearby my local and national politicians and I would be asking them, everyday, why there is no adequate help available. Even if the best I can hope for is to die right next to them and with the knowledge of the local press then I would consider that a victory.
Maybe an individual cannot stop what's happening to them but they can perhaps help stop it from happening to others. — universeness

:up:

Intelligence - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. I won't do that again.

Wisdom - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow!.... Bang. Hey... wait a minute! — T Clark

:snicker:

What a mindjob, eh?

:heart:

:snicker:

Good one!

As for nirvana, do you suppose one of 'em options is via dolorosa (the problem is the solution :snicker: ). There are precedents of clearing one's karmic debt through intense suffering (hell being the "easiest" way to do this). Interesting stuff this is! :chin:

I see. Good to know. Muchas gracias.

I haven't completely 'sussed' the subtleties of your approach yet agent smith.
Your typing above would suggest your meaning is easy to follow if you look at the literal meaning of the words you type but it could also be an admission that the exact opposite is true.
I remain, as I expect you prefer, fogged, concerning your actual opinions on most topics.
I don't mind the dance! — universeness

I'm not a sophisticated person, mon ami! I've always had the feeling I have barbarian blood in me. :snicker:

Avoiding attachment without trying not to try to avoid it is the hardest part. Please don't imagine I know how to do it. — T Clark

I thought you might have some idea how to, you know, find the way out of the maze of suffering/agony/angst/pain. I would like that very much, but looks like I'm not getting out of the mess I'm in anytime soon. I hope, I :grin: and bear it!

Cryptic! I think you like the fact that I have no idea if you are attacking me or supporting me.
Perhaps a little of both? — universeness

I try to stay literal!

it's the attachment to what we desire that gets us into trouble. — T Clark

:snicker: Gracias for clearingt that up for me.

Is not wanting attachment itself an attachment? :chin:

This is another one of those philosophical enigmas that I haven't been able to crack for, what?, the last 30+ years.

Reminds me of trying to get cellotape off my hand. It's stuck on my right hand; I pull it off using my left, it now gets stuck on my left hand; I use my feet, it gets stuck on my feet...you get the idea! I can't get it off! :cry: I'm suffering!!!

Three maxims:

1. For followers: Tim Toady!

2. For trailblazers: Bicarbonate!

3. For both: Tim Toady Bicarbonate!

This shows a pretty egregious lack of understanding of what "suffering" means in Buddhism.

Thank you for the opportunity to use "egregious" in a post. — T Clark

You may have a point. What's your take on suffering...in an out of Buddhism?

You're welcome.

I would like some answers.

Let's give the Doubting Thomases their due: The probability that any one person, say x, is hallucinating P(h) = $\frac{1}{2}$.

That means the probability that x is not hallucinating i.e. x is perceiving true reality P(r) = $\frac{1}{2}$

That's a 50/50 chance of hallucination/real.

Now, there are two other people y and z with x.

The probability that all 3 (x, y, z) are hallucinating P(H) = $\frac{1}{2} \times \frac{1}{2} \times \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{8}$

P(h) > P(H). This is good news, the more the merrier. If more people report a perception, the chances that it could be a hallucination is unlikely.

However...

The probability that all 3 (x, y, z) could be perceiving the real P(R) = $\frac{1}{2} \times \frac{1}{2} \times \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{8}$

WTF?

The P(H) = P(R). In other words, we ain't out of the woods yet.

Heellllllp!

I'm about 99% sure that this has been done before, but I'll throw it out there to give this thread a shot in the arm so to speak.

Skepticism predates mathematical probability and so it, in a sense, owes its strength to a gap in our knowledge of math. The skeptic works their magic - sowing the seeds of doubt - by playing with possibility, but bring the math of chance to bear down on possibilities and Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of Skepticism, seems not as intimidating as initially perceived.

How math undermines skepticism:

1. The, sensu amplo, dogmatist: Realism.

2. The skeptic: What we think is real could be an illusion/hallucination. Possibility simpliciter.

3. The mathematician: There's an x% chance that this world is/isn't real. Weakens skepticism (not by much, yes, but still). An improvement for the dogmatist in my book. Possibility mathematized (Fermat, Pascal, and their gambling buddies) aka Probability.

Australia — universeness

:cool:

:snicker:

mysticism! — universeness

A desperado's escape hatch! Something must give, si?

Haha! Poor Geoffrey.... He could have known he had it coming though.

"I Chew my boots mam. I feel trapped!" — Hillary

:snicker: I don't get it but since you're so smart, I know it's funny! :grin:

I've hit the limits of what I know and my analytical ability. I kinda feel stupid right now. :snicker:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

:zip: You shut me up!

I can't believe you asked that question. — Cuthbert

You are very wise, a seasoned player! :up:

As a matter of fact, that's exactly what's it about! — Hillary

:nerd:

None of the properties of any part of this web is fundamental — universeness

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

EEEE
E
EEE
E
EEEE

That's how my brain understands Chew!

:snicker:

everything might be a hallucination. — Cuthbert

Self-refuting, oui? Marvin Minsky and his useless machines (the only reason they exist is to become nonexistent).

Something $\to$ Nothing!

The other way round...

Nothing $\to$ Something! Anti-Marvin Minsky (anti-useless machines).

:snicker:

Bhutan — Hillary

:snicker:

Bhutan = The self-contained, self-sustaining, ever-expanding, universe! Possible! Why not?

Or

Another North Korea!

@Hillary

There's little to no difference between evil (Satan) and justice (Justitia). This, in my humble opinion, is the crux of the issue. A taste of one's own medicine! Reciprocity, re Newton's 3^rd law.

To complicate matters further, as if that were not enough, one must be able to distinguish Praxidice (justice) from the Furies/Erinyes (vengeance).

If you knew the physics, that should be, exactly not. — Hillary

:chin: Gracias.

It is fine to discuss your interests. I was only referring to proofs of God failing to prove anything. — Jackson

:ok:

Like the rest of nature, 'human nature' – especially during persistent, elemental eras of raw survival – takes paths of least resistance / effort (i.e. caloric expenditure) as frequently as possible; making shit up (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) is so much easier than working things out and thinking them through (i.e. trial & error heuristics) that, like early human development, the habit of make-believing (faith) takes hold long before evidence-based thinking for oneself (reason) is learned and practiced. — 180 Proof

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

The homo sapiens paradox: We've defined ourselves as wise man and yet that seems to apply to only a small section of the population of humans. Too, people who're inclined towards intellectual activites are derogatorily labeled nerds, geeks, so on. This is rather curious, oui?

This is not my question nor topic of thread. But discussion of your interests is fine. — Jackson

A thousand apologies.

Brother Smith! — Hillary

:snicker:

"Simplicity" ended after the first microsecond after the "big bang". — 180 Proof

The Big Bang is not the beginning of our universe, it is the end of our understanding. — Sean Carroll

Yeah – ignoring the Milky Way (with the supermassive blackhole at the galactic center c27k light years away from Sol). — 180 Proof

:snicker: True, as per Chaos Theory, nothing at all is negligible...our ignore list should be a blank page. So much for simplicity.

My overall point is that nature CAN be explained without g/G and morality CAN be justified without g/G from which it"s reasonable to imply that g/G is not (a/the) "necessary being" (pace Anselm) and, therefore, does not exist (re: theism). Thus, contrary to reals, g/G requires "faith". :fire: — 180 Proof

I've been mulling over this: What if faith (religion) $\to$ reason (science) isn't the correct order in which things happened. It could've been reason (science) $\to$ faith (religion). A hint: rationality is a suicidal meme (applying itself to itself it self-destructs). Ancient folks must've realized that and hence they chose faith over reason because, at the end of the day, it's faith all the way down. Something like that...

Ignoring just the Sun and (that massive comet-asteroid deflector) Jupiter – yeah Earth is otherwise (thermodynamically & celestial mechanically) "self-sufficient". :eyes: — 180 Proof

The Sun & Jupiter are implicit in autarky. Nevertheless, if hair-splittining is your thing, you have a point.

Would you agree that the Solar system, as a whole, is an autarky (as long as the Sun's nuclear fuel lasts)?

You got me thinking. Just like Jupiter, do ya suppose all the other planets too provide some kind of life-promoting/sustaining service to earth? Gravitationally, all the planets, acting in unison along with the Sun maybe keeping earth locked in the Sun's Goldilocks zone. In a sense, the entire planetary system around a star is critical to life on one of them. So, Jupiter's the vacuum cleaner (sucking up asteroids & comets. Shoemaker-Levy 9), Saturn's the..., Mars' the.... (fill in the blanks).

"Taoism? Never heard of it! What are you on about?"

"Then you're a taoist, you knucklehead!"

:snicker:

I don't think Lao Tzu, as a good Taoist — T Clark

Going by the essence of Taoism (negation/inversion), a good Taoist is a bad Taoist...perhaps not a Taoist at all. :snicker:

:ok:

That is genius stuff. :clap: — Merkwurdichliebe

You jest! :snicker:

If I remember correctly, dukkha is suffering and it is due to our dependence on maya, which ultimately keeps us stuck in samsara. So, following that thread, the great illusions of life are a sort of a drug that keeps us sane by by distracting us from the eternal suffering that Guatama sought to escape. You must admit, given the buddhist perspective, what Guatama attempted is an insane task by all worldly standards. Religion is a tricky thing. — Merkwurdichliebe

Gautama, in my humble opinion, was cursed with hyperalgesia (his pain threshold was low) and hence, I suspect, his description of existence as hellish (1^st Noble truth: Life is suffering). It could be the other way round of course: Most folks are, in this case, gifted with hypolalgesia (high pain threshold). According to legend, Gautama descended from...paradise? The penny drops, oui?