Functioning Under Unideal Conditions

Being able to still keep going when things aren't ideal is a crucial skill, because reality is almost never ideal.  I call this ability Functioning Under Unideal Conditions.  If turning it into an acronym that looks vaguely filthy helps you remember it, I guess that's okay.  As long as you can live by the main idea behind it.

Sometimes conditions are so bad that you aren't able to function no matter how tough you are, but if conditions are just unideal, then yeah, it's something you should be able to live with.  You have to shoot for optimal conditions most of the time because ideal is most likely too elusive.

My Unexciting Religious Testimony

I talk about religion a lot in this blog, but I don't think I've ever posted all that much on how I became religious myself.

A lot of people have very dramatic conversion stories, often about how they went down the wrong road and reached rock bottom before finally abandoning shallow pursuits and grasping a much deeper meaning of life.  I am not one of those people.  I grew up with a very religious father, and he grew up in a very religious Louisiana family.  My dad and his seven siblings were very poor growing up, but they all got along really well for as long as I've known them, even now as their days are beginning to end and they're slowly beginning to pass away.

In my elementary school days I was fairly typical.  Did bad stuff every once in a while that got me in trouble.  I'd go to church with my dad here and there and he got me a kid's Bible by Mary Batchelor with great illustrations that I'd look at from time to time without actually reading much.  Most of the time I just watched TV and played Nintendo when I wasn't in school.

One of my many cousins and I were out in the woods of Louisiana one day during this time, and even though his father was a minister, he and I spent that day saying every foul word we knew of at that time, because a bunch we still didn't know.  But then we decided we were tired of that foolishness and pretty much stopped saying bad words after that.

So when I got to middle school and high school I was actually a bit more behaved.  I never had an urge to drink or smoke or anything like that.  Adult magazines and websites were a different story and once I got into those I didn't shake that habit until I was 26 or so.  Other than that I didn't have too many problems other than being very lazy in 10th grade.  But by 11th grade I woke up and stopped being quite so lazy, and life got a bit easier after that.

I believe it was in 8th grade when I finally felt called to walk up to the front of the service during the church's period of invitation.  I thought about it for a good long while before I finally did.  I think I was worried about not being saved at that point.  I was baptized shortly afterward.  I started going to church regularly, but I got kind of freaked out in Sunday school with the pop religious music and socializing so I pretty much stayed in regular church.  

I read the Bible (or at least most of it) when I went to college, but even by then I didn't feel the spirit impacting me very deeply.  Not that I craved the spirit very much.  Some other religious folks there met me from time to time, but I couldn't be as committed as they were.  I think it was good to meet them here and there and I did appreciate it.  I went to church only sporadically during my college days.

My mom passed away while I was in college and I ended up moving back in with my dad and going back to the church I grew up in and was baptized in.  They asked me to do some of the sound and/or projector and I did it for a few years, but it wasn't very fun for me.  I can't call it a thankless job because I was thanked quite often by many members of the congregation.  I had a lot more fun going to lunch with the medical students after church.  We had a whole Sunday school class of just married medical students at that time because the church is close to a medical school.

A few years later I got married myself ,and my wife and I went to about two or three different churches before picking one to settle with.  I think it was at this time that I finally really started to get a feel of what Biblical doctrine was truly about, and I actually began craving a lifestyle that did not forsake the Lord.  I realized the deep truths of Proverbs and how material as old as that really can apply so much even today.  It's a book I feel EVERY young man should read because all of the pitfalls it talks about are very real.  And I came to feel more and more that life is not a meaningless and random series of pointless events.  There's very much an intent behind nature, and MUCH more to the world than meets the eye.

I ended up going back to church with my dad again a few years later, and I guess I've been going with him every Sunday for the past three or four years.  It's a time I cherish because I know it's becoming limited as he progresses to an advanced age.  

Me being middle aged now myself makes me realize how fragile humanity is and how it really does need a lot of help in its battle against sin.  I know I'll take what help I can get because I certainly am not immune from falling into the traps of self-deception and failing to realize my own sins.   That doesn't go away just because I'm a bit older.  I don't care if people think I use religion as a crutch.  Why?  Because I do.  And I don't care if they think I was indoctrinated either.  So what if I was?

My life, even if it seems dull to many, has been quite fulfilling to me, where I got to live many dreams and ambitions and experienced a lot of good fortune.  There were some setbacks here and there and I'm sure those will continue.  But I hope I can be as thankful for all that God has given me as I have been over the past few years of slow spiritual awakening and realizing how amazingly frequently involved God has been in just my mediocre life.  God revealed so very much to me in my secular and religious studies and in my relationships that he never had to show me at all.  But he wanted to anyway.

Even just quiet mornings where I wake up early and take it slow before work bring me so much joy.  I don't even have my heart set on eternal life all that much because I've already been so blessed with just the temporary one God has given me.  Of course I still believe that next life is still there.  But even without it, God's goodness to me here has been so evident.  I know it hasn't been that way for everyone, and those I pray he takes special care of in the next life.

A Bad Idea About Strength

It's probably a bad idea to demand that people who are stronger than you should be even stronger than they already are.  Seems like it could potentially backfire.  

We can't forget that in this world even the strong are more fragile than they appear.

Does the Omniscient Viewpoint Matter?

Here again I'm arguing against moral relativism because it's something I like to do.  Perhaps someone has used this argument before and I've just never seen it.

Suppose we have a court case, and the man is found guilty by the jury because the evidence is compelling and strong.  But also suppose the man is innocent despite the indication of the evidence (kind of like a Sherlock Holmes story).  The jury just voted him guilty because of their limited perception, but really did their best given their lack of omniscience.  You can't bash their integrity for doing what they could with the tools they had.

Now moral relativists would classify the man on trial as immoral because his moral status was determined by consensus after some due diligence.  Even more so if the general public pretty much agrees with the verdict.  But what about the omniscient viewpoint - you know, the only one that can even potentially detect his innocence?  Does that viewpoint mean anything?

We Can’t Say Something Positive is Impossible???

I’ve spent some time lately looking at Godel’s ontological proof and trying to comprehend it the best way I can.  Axiom 5 seems the most troubling to me out of the whole argument, but today I want to focus on just Theorem 1 of the proof and the two axioms leading up to it.  Here it is below, copied from Wikipedia for quick reference:

Theorem 1 says if a property is positive, then it’s possible there exists such a property.  That seems reasonable.  Positive things do exist in this world after all.  But if we look a little more deeply at this statement, this claim is a bit stronger than it looks, because we’re saying we cannot definitively claim ANY positive property is completely impossible in all potential worlds.  We can’t call any positive activity completely impossible.

And Godel seems to use a slick method to claim this, using the vacuous truth rules, which I’m always suspicious of because I think they were just made to keep the truth value system closed to two values instead of opening up a third undecided value.  

First Godel assumes Theorem 1 isn’t true in an attempt to derive a contradiction.  He says “Phi is a positive property AND it’s necessary that for all x, NOT phi of x,” which is the opposite of what Theorem 1 says.  This makes sense.  To negate an if-then statement you assert the premise and the opposite of the conclusion. 

After that he notices that the portion of Axiom 1 stating “it’s necessary that for all x, phi of x” opposes a portion of his assumption.  Plus this portion of Axiom 1 is the beginning of a conditional.  So his assumption to start the proof of the theorem creates a vacuous truth in Axiom 1 where the axiom claims phi of x.  Because of this, by the rules of vacuous truths, the if phi of x then psi of x statement in Axiom 1 is ALWAYS true, no matter what value psi of x takes.

So Godel just takes that psi of x and makes it equal negative phi of x.  So the output of Axiom 1 after this substitution says if (phi is a positive property) and (it’s necessary that for all x, if phi of x then NOT phi of x) then NOT phi is a positive property.  Kind of a nasty double conditional.  The conditional inside the conditional was a vacuous truth.  But the outer conditional has its premise consisting of two true statements, one being phi is a positive property, which we already asserted as soon as we started the proof by contradiction, and the vacuous truth.  So both parts of the conditional premise being true will indeed yield the result of NOT phi being a positive property being a true statement.

All that mess is not easy to write out.  And we did it all just to get the statement “NOT phi is a positive property.”  Now we can finally go to Axiom 2, and claim that since NOT phi is a positive property, then that implies phi is NOT a positive property.  Easy enough.

And of course now we have just concluded phi is NOT a positive property, even though the very first thing we did at the beginning of proof by contradiction was to assume “Phi is a positive property AND it’s necessary that for all x, NOT phi of x.”  So we have phi being a positive property and phi NOT being a positive property.  This is a contradiction, and completes our proof by contradiction.  We have shown that if phi is a positive property then it’s possible there exists some x with that property.

But of course I am very suspicious of a vacuous truth being used.  So I asked my Gemini app if it could produce an example of a similar scenario where this proof structure is followed, and the axioms seem reasonable, but the conclusion seems like nonsense.  Mostly as an attempt to discredit the use of vacuous truths in proofs in the future.  It cleverly suggested to plug in the phi variable as “impossible crime” and the P variable as “legal.”  It also suggested phi as invisible socks and P as fashionable, and phi as boiling ice cream and P as delicious.  These seem CLOSE to fitting the axioms, but I still don’t feel they fit the axioms comfortably enough to my satisfaction when I sit down and try to plug them in.

So even though I don’t like vacuous truth arguments, I can’t seem to invalidate them the way I’d like to.  Perhaps we really do have to admit that if something is positive, then it can't be impossible, at least under the two seemingly reasonable axioms Godel used.  I really have to admire his skill in coming up with this trick.  It’s ugly, and questionable, but I can’t find a way to attack it the way I’d like to, try as I may.  Maybe someone else will have better luck.  

A pretty picture involving the Gaussian Integral

The Gaussian integral is a neat and very easy representation of the bell curve with the area under the curve exactly equal to the square root of pi.  Nice simple-looking expression.  The usual bell curve formula looks a lot worse since it's a family of curves and it also sets the area under the curve equal to one instead of the square root of pi.  Or something of that nature.

Inspired by that expression, I used Desmos to plot the picture below.  The darker shape is just a semi-circle with radius equal to the fraction one over the 4th root of pi.  But I designed the plot so that the dark semi-circle area in the picture was EXACTLY equal to the light orange area between the semi-circle and the bell curve.  I think that precise relationship makes a geometric picture such as this look quite nice, even though it's difficult to intuitively tell the areas are indeed equivalent.  The picture kind of looks like a pretty sunset if you fill it in with the right colors.  Both areas should be equal to the square root of pi over two if I didn't make any errors.

And here are the expressions I typed into Desmos to generate the aesthetically pleasing plots shown above.

I think that's enough fun for one day.

Why is the number e in the bell curve equation?

When I think of bell curves, I tend to think more of Galton boards than a graphical representation of test score averages.  Galton boards are those fun things with all the marbles in them that you flip over and most of them gather in the middle while a few go off to the sides.  Big enough Galton boards can approximate a bell curve fairly accurately.  Really interesting seeing how even though each ball follows an unpredictable path, altogether they form a shape that's quite predictable, if you have enough of them.

Anyhow, Galton boards have binomial coefficients in their mathematical calculations - like many things in probability do - and of course binomial coefficients have factorials.  But what's interesting is factorials can be represented by Striling's approximation.  This estimates n factorial to be pretty close to (root (2*pi*n))*(n/e)^n.  Hopefully I typed all that out correctly, but I'm sure it's not hard to find online.  

Well anyhow, that's how we see an e appear, if we trust formulas like that and feel comfortable looking up the derivations of those formulas later.  Stirling's approximation is involved in the approximation of a factorial, and if you plug those approximations into the binomial coefficients in the formulas similar to Galton board type models, you get a formula called the De Moivre-Laplace Theorem.  

The Galton board shows how a large accumulation of randomized left-right choices from a centralized point (which I guess we could think of as a mean) forms a bell curve, and the De Moivre-Laplace theorem gives the formula showing the e in that equation.

A Look at Why Anti-Derivatives May be Tougher than Derivatives

 The definition of the derivative is the limit as x goes to zero of (F(x+dx)-F(x))/dx.  If you're given a function, it's not too bad to plug it into this thing, do some algebra, take the limit, and see what happens.

But try going backwards.  Try taking a function, then doing algebraic manipulations to get another function into this form.  Seems to be much tougher, and I guess there are a lot more potential options you could do, but then getting them to simplify in the right way seems somewhat daunting if you're like me and not all that great at algebraic manipulation.

Let's take something simple like 2x for example, and try getting its anti-derivative by algebraically manipulating it to look like something that fits the definition of the derivative.

2x

First let's add dx to it.  Since dx will just be going to zero when the limit is taken, I guess it's kind of like adding zero.

2x+dx

Then multiply by 1, but put 1 in the form of dx over dx.

(2x+dx)(dx/dx)

Multiply the top dx through.

(2xdx+dx^2)/dx

Add zero to the numerator, with zero in the form of x squared minus itself.

(2xdx+dx^2+x^2 – x^2)/dx

Shift one of the x squareds to the front.

(x^2+2xdx+dx^2 – x^2)/dx

Realize the first three terms can combine.

((x+dx)^2 – x^2)/dx

Then realize that we now have the function x^2 in the form of the limit as x goes to zero of (F(x+dx)-F(x))/dx.

This implies that the derivative of x^2 is 2x, which means the anti-derivative of 2x is x^2.

That was a LOT of algebraic manipulation I would have NEVER thought of doing if I didn't do this problem backwards to begin with.  And this is one of the easiest anti-derivatives.  Imagine if we tried something harder.

When the tool is more interesting than the thing it was designed for....

I remember learning cursive handwriting in 3rd grade and being very excited about whatever letter I was going to learn next.  It seems obvious to me that cursive was designed to be faster than print since you don't have to lift your pen, but now that computers have taken over, the advantage of speed that cursive writing once had has now become moot.  

The capital G in particular is one of my favorite cursive letters I think.  It's just pretty to look at.  And cursive in general is pretty I think.  While it was designed for speed, now it seems to be more elegant than anything else.  It kind of seems fun to think about printing cursive G's on that old gray multi-lined handwriting practice paper for a day, even though it would serve no practical purpose.  

So the tool once used for enhancing communication speed (cursive) seems more interesting to me than the ability to print a message quickly.  The yanghaiying YouTube channel, with its sporadic focus on Chinese calligraphy, kind of reminds me of the elegance of cursive writing.

Moving on, I know some mathematics was developed as a tool for engineering or some other related field, and other mathematics was developed for its own sake, but often I feel that mathematical tools are more interesting than whatever they were designed to accomplish.  I know very little about Fourier series for instance, but it's my understanding their initial function was to deal with heat equations.  The 3Blue1Brown YouTube channel instead focuses on how they can be used to draw pictures with circles.

Betaine HCL Testimony

Even though I prefer religious testimonies to testimonies about non-religious experiences, I think my particular experience here is worth mentioning - particularly to anyone struggling with chronic severe indigestion.  

I had testicular cancer way back in 2007 and radiation was part of the recommended preventative treatment so it wouldn't spread to other organs.  That radiation was no joke and I had to take STRONG anti-nausea medication in order to function during that time.

Many years later, in 2019, I began to have major digestive issues.  Constant, constant belching and bloating.  Massive indigestion.  Significant weight loss as well.  An endoscopy revealed no definite cause.  Slight gastritis, but nothing else.  At least it seemed to rule out anything big and noticeable like cancer again.  Whether what I was having was caused by or related to the radiation treatment many years before, I have no idea.

Eventually through strong persuasion by good friends that left me no excuses, I tried an unconventional approach with a chiropractor who had a simple test to measure stomach acid.  This was in 2024.  He determined that my stomach acid was very low and prescribed Betaine HCL pills.  These were supplements that provided additional stomach acid when the stomach acid I made naturally fell short.  

I started out taking as few of these pills as possible because I was scared to death of them.  I thought they'd eventually eat a hole through my stomach and kill me.  I suppose that's still a possibility, but now I usually take 15 of them a day (5 per meal), which is the maximum amount the chiropractor recommended, and think nothing of it.  And they certainly make me feel a lot better.  I still bloat up here and there when I eat a little too much, but it's not CONSTANT like it was before I took the medicine.  

So even though we see a seemingly endless amount of antacid commercials for heartburn on TV, I guess some people have the opposite problem and need MORE stomach acid.  I must be one of the few that fall into that category.  

Atlanta Nights

Atlanta Nights is one of the worst books ever.  A bunch of science fiction writers got together to write the worst book they could and trick a self-publishing company into accepting it, and their plan actually worked.  

I may be the only person in the history of the world to read this book from beginning to end TWICE.

Even the people that WROTE the book probably didn't fully read it through once.  They wrote it with each writer taking a separate chapter I believe.

I reviewed it on Amazon many years ago.  But I don't think my review stressed how filthy the book was.  I mentioned it, but didn't stress it enough.  I remember a scene that was quite disturbing involving body parts stored in a room.  Private body parts too.  The book really went out of its way to be tasteless.  

But even with gross stuff like that mixed in here and there it was still quite hilarious for the most part, even during some tasteless scenes.  In one scene, a lady shoots an intruder in her house and then genuinely tries seducing him during his massive blood loss, recognizing him as a former lover after firing her gun.  Pitiful.  

The typos were by far my favorite part.  One guy in one chapter kept rubbing his beard and pushing back his hair.  But "back" was spelled "backs."  So it was a typo.  Only this was written like six times in the chapter.  With the SAME typo every single time.  Also there was one part in that same chapter where someone was told to back off.  But the same typo was present there as well, so it read, "Backs off, you!"  Intentionally hilarious.

Why 26 is a Special Number

I found out a while back that the number 26 is the ONLY number out of all the natural numbers that is immediately after a perfect square and immediately before a perfect cube.  Indeed, 25 equals 5 squared, and 27 equals 3 cubed.  26 is sandwiched perfectly in-between these.  But how do we know there are no other instances of this anywhere?  If we list out ALL perfect squares and ALL perfect cubes, how do we know that no other number will be exactly 1 before and 1 after anything in the two lists?  That's a whole heck of a lot of numbers to test.  Especially since neither list ever ends.

Our first strategy is to write the equation x^2 + 1 = y^3 - 1 and simplify it to x^2 + 2 = y^3.  Okay, that part seems simple.  But where the heck do we go from here?  I was stuck.  So I went to the math stack exchange website, because it had the question along with several answers.  A link is right here:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/874226/y3-x2-2-rightarrow-y-3-27-is-the-only-cube-exceeding-a-square-by

But I couldn't really understand the answers I saw for a long time.  Then after pondering over it for a long while and asking AI questions and stuff, I finally got the main idea.  I tried to post that main idea I had as an answer on the math stack exchange site to supplement the other answers, but it was not well received and was promptly deleted.  Probably because the audience for the site is not comfortable working in imprecise layman terms.  So I'm reposting what was deleted here:

"This is a very interesting question to me, and the path to its answer is even more interesting. Since my formal graduate level education is non-existent in this subject and I'm not comfortable at all with a lot of mathematical jargon, I had to think long and hard to understand the solution, even AFTER looking at the other answers here.

But the simplest way I can communicate the main idea behind the answer to the question is this: while it would be WONDERFUL to get this answer without leaving the domain of the integers, it's pretty darn tough to do. So what you do is you examine a domain that contains all the integers, but is actually LARGER than the integers and you get the solutions there. If you only have one solution in that larger domain, then you're only going to have one or less solutions in the integer domain. That's the main idea.

 

So what you do is you take this equation and look at its solutions in the domain that contains all integers AND all integers with scalar multiples of the square root of negative two added to them.

 

Numbers in this larger domain are of the form a+b(root -2) so rewrite the equation x squared plus 1 equals y cubed minus 1 where both x and y take on this form and then work with the algebra and see what happens. This is pretty much what Adam Hughes already did in his answer - better than I could ever do - but I know I had a hard time even comprehending his answer without understanding the main idea about the larger domains first.

 

For the equation you pose in your question in this a+b(root -2) domain, there's only one answer, and it is an integer, and so there's only one answer in the smaller domain of the integers.

 

This post may seem redundant to those comfortable with the material, but for novices I think it's a vital point to slow down on and emphasize in order to fully comprehend. And to put in plain English with little jargon if possible."

So with that main idea in place we factor the x^2 + 2 in the equation as (x+root(-2))*(x - root(-2)), and we can work in the larger domain.  So x^2 + 2 = y^3  becomes (x+root(-2))*(x - root(-2)) = y^3.

Then we can write the y in the a+b(root(-2)) form and take the cube of that form to see what happens. (a+b(root(-2)))^3 is straight-forward to expand but a lot of effort.  Thankfully the Adam Hughes answer in the site already does that part.  He has a good answer but for people who don't know what norms or integer rings are, they're going to be lost on how to even begin.  I certainly was.

Uncertainty Principles and the Failed Quest for the Worst Movie Ever

When I first started watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 on the Sci-Fi Channel back in 1997, after several black and white movies and a few color ones, all of a sudden episode featuring the film called "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies" sprang up and caught me by surprise.  Sure, the movies before this one were quite laughable, but this one clearly stood out.  I instantly thought it was the worst film I had ever seen and that I ever would see.  But then a few months later "The Horror of Party Beach" shows up.  I still thought Incredibly Strange Creatures was worse, but Party Beach was a major contender.

Over the years I was exposed to more MST3K movies, particularly from earlier seasons, and man there were some bad ones.  I kept looking for one that was clearly the worst.  And titles like "The Wild, Wild World of Batwoman" were pretty much on par with Incredibly Strange Creatures.  Then years later Rifftrax comes along and boy, they really found out how to scrape the very bottom of the barrel.  Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny might have actually been worse than Incredibly Strange Creatures.  And of course later we start seeing titles like Rollergator and Birdemic, and more recently stuff like Suburban Sasquatch and The Amazing Bulk.  This stuff is utter trash.  So much of it could really claim to be tied for first place as the worst movie ever.  But the one that made me truly give up my quest for the worst movie ever in earnest was Fun in Balloonland.

Does that mean Fun in Balloonland is the worst movie ever?  Not really.  My exposure to it simply establishes that finding a movie that's definitively the worst ever is too vague of a question.  IS Fun in Balloonland even a movie?  It's slightly shorter than a full length feature, the credits seem to be limited or non-existent, and half of the movie is clearly just parade footage with no story whatsoever.  Fun in Balloonland is borderline a home video.  So can a home video even qualify as the worst movie ever?  I mean, it's not a real movie in that case.  The worst movie ever is not a movie at all.  So definitions start to break down.  It's like the uncertainty principle in physics.  You try to know momentum and you can't know position, and you try to know position and you can't know momentum.  At least that's how my untrained mind understands the principle.  

And with Balloonland, it's like you try to measure its quality and you sacrifice measuring how close it is to an actual movie, and you try to measure how close it is to an actual movie and you sacrifice how you can measure its quality.  Because you'd judge the quality of home movies differently than you'd judge the quality of regular movies.  At least I'd think you would.

For years I tried to put this uncertainty principle for bad movies into more mathematical terms, proving that attempting one type of measurement always disrupts the other, but have failed in my attempts to do so.  So I guess I've given up proving that there can be no worst movie ever, just like I gave up actively looking for the worst movie ever.  This is what Fun in Balloonland did to me.

Strange Bean Novels From 20 Years Ago

When I first read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland I absolutely loved it.  It was wonderfully goofy and weird, and I thought it would be fun to try to write something like that myself.  So I did.  I wrote the weirdest, goofiest thing I could think of.  Long, long ago.  But I didn't actually post it online until fairly recently.  I guess I delayed it because I thought I'd eventually try to clean it up more and make it better and try to market it again.  But I got too busy with other things and decided I probably wasn't going to work on it anymore and to just leave it as it is.  Especially since the likelihood of publication was slim to none, leaning far more towards none.  

But I had a lot of fun writing it and a lot of fun re-reading it even though it has its flaws.  Hopefully I uploaded it with no sections missing and all the sections in order.

I called this unpublished book Boomo the Bean Visits Confusion Country, and a link to it is here:

https://confusioncountry.blogspot.com/

But after I wrote that one I also wrote a crazy sequel, Boomo the Bean Sees Through the Hourglass, and the link to it is right here:

https://boomohourglass.blogspot.com/

Also, if you click on my blog profile, you'll find the links there as well.  I put illustrations in the books too and that was a big part of the fun.

Causes, Effects, and Natural Selection

Science is about causes happening and effects stemming from those causes.  Goal setting is about changing causes to reach desired effects.  In goal setting you are not observing effects as in science.  You are dictating them.  

Natural selection appears to be a goal to sustain life.  Strict cause and effect should have no goals.  I am not arguing that natural selection is false here.  But I certainly don't mind asserting that nature has intended goals.  There's a term already in existence for this assertion - teleology.  And there's also a term for its counterargument - teleonomy.  

When I asked Copilot AI about teleology, it suggested an argument based in teleonomy that variations in species occur randomly, and environments filter out the variations so that only the successful variations survive.  Sure seems to be more of a deterministic argument than a free will argument.  

But I believe that the striving we experience in life goes far beyond unintentional programming.  Can't prove it of course.  But I can assert it vehemently.    

Obligation vs. Preference

It should seem clear that obligation is not determined by preference.  Certainly not at the individual level because it can potentially erase accountability.  But then we have to think, is obligation determined by collective preference?  I would imagine not.  Otherwise books like Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds never would have been written, and peer pressure wouldn't have a negative connotation.  

Why Does EVERYONE Say Their Parents Were Bad?

I don't know if I visit the most representative locations on the internet as far as statistical samples go by frequenting Yahoo news articles and political Youtube videos and such, but I swear, in almost every forum or comment section, for every one person I see complimenting their parents and calling them a blessing, I see about 20 or 30 talking about how toxic their parents were.  And we're not talking about teenagers that are still in the middle of maturing and dealing with discipline issues.  These are people in their 30's and 40's who've had ample time to look back.  

My question is, why the dissatisfaction?  Are there really THAT many bad parents out there abusing and neglecting their kids?  Is there just too much expectation regarding parental roles where they have to be absolutely perfect to even be considered decent?  I mean, WHY do so many people have problems with their parents?  I had awesome parents, so it boggles my mind that so many people apparently did not.  

I can't stress enough that I have NO problems with my parents and what they did in my upbringing whatsoever.  They were good people that tried their very best and did WAY more than they ever should have for me.  Were they flawed human beings?  Of course.  Who isn't.  But once I grew up, and possibly even before then, I could certainly tell that they clearly had my best interests at heart and put in SO much effort and sacrifice for my own wellbeing - particularly my mom.  

This realization is not dampered when I look back and think how scared I was when my mom yelled at me or how mad I was at my dad for using the belt when I got really out of line.  They did these things because I needed correction.  Not because they were on some power trip or thought it was fun.  Because they darn sure didn't seem to have fun correcting me.  Not to mention they bought me more toys than I could even count over those 17 or so years.  And they didn't cheat on each other or spend all night at the bar.  

Are parents like mine really so rare?  If so, I guess I can see why the divorce rate is so high.  But it still boggles my mind that so many parents would be problematic enough to not even be considered decent, much less good.  

Even if I classified mine as phenomenal, that could still potentially be an understatement.  The fact is they deserve more love and respect than I could ever give them.  Thank you mom and dad.  Regardless of how your peers behaved, you were shining examples of a traditional family structure.

Exploring Oppression's Limits... On the Weak End

I wonder, how oppressed would Cinderella consider herself to be if her stepmother and stepsisters still held household authority over her, but forced her to do little or no chores, and she spent most of her time playing on a computer all day.  I imagine if they continued to verbally torment her, that would still be oppressive (or at least abusive).  But I'd think it would take more to claim she was genuinely oppressed besides her not be the one in charge making the decisions.

I think to be a true oppressor, one has to exercise enough authority that they transfer most of the shared workload to the one they're oppressing, and not carry it themselves.  But I'm not sure how much distinction we make between terms like jerk, bully, oppressor, and abuser on a daily basis, and that may factor into this thought exercise here.  Those terms probably each emphasize slightly different negative characteristics.

Mr. Friend

My son's favorite stuffed animal growing up was a frog he called Mr. Friend.  It was hard not to like Mr. Friend.

Jet Jaguar Can Deadlift