Additional ideas

From Lukasgirtanner
Jump to: navigation, search


Link to the content on

  • The link to the content on Attractiveness, restraint, sublimation and mathematics: To what extent discuss it here and to what extent discuss it on

Differences in learning abilities

  • What or how significant/big is the difference of the learning abilities and processes between technology and mathematics even in an optimized learning environment, especially when considering the (individually differing/varying) intelligence of a particular baby, toddler or child? Or in other words: How big is the difference between what a person can learn from birth technologically and mathematically at a certain level of (genetically predetermined) intelligence? What are especially the limits in terms of mathematics learning? Might there be a disappointment when it comes to mathematics learning even in the most adapted and sophisticated learning environment in case of a substantial fraction or the majority of children? (I have an idea on that and wrote it down on paper in April 2010, the solution is just to individually adapt mathematics tuition for every baby, toddler and child, but in the longer term, the issue might become more pressing despite individualized tuition.) And what might this mean for individually adapted tuition and genetic assessment and possibly improvement? To which extent is a technology upwards push into good mathematics learning possible (in terms of learning environments and/or later in terms of genetic engineering)? To which extent is extremely well developed knowledge in pure mathematics a/the necessary precondition for genetic improvement? And to which extent do these questions matter already now given the fact that the learning environments of present-day conventional schools still lack far behind anyway in terms of what would be possible purely on the level of a learning environment and regardless of genetic differences?

Saying important statements and hardly anybody listens?

  • Could it happen that you tell something that is true or important, but hardly anybody is really interested? Why? What would you have to change and why? (Amendment of 2010-07-12: I am not sure but the consideration of this section here might be at least partialy outdated. End of the amendment.)

How controversial is the topic of genetics?

  • Is the topic of genetics controversial and/or broad/large/substantial/voluminous/wide enough to not be discussed on this website here, but only or primarily on

Mention the RSS feeds

  • Mention the RSS feeds that are available both on and under Special:Recentchanges in order to more conveniently be notified about the latest changes in the wiki respectively automatically obtain the wiki's latest changes.

Similar pages for dancing, singing, and acting like the page for musical instrument learning

  • a similar page like the page Multimodal musical instrument learning for dancing, singing, acting? and what about lying (and the associated dishonesty and attractiveness) when training to act (a topic actually)?

"Declaring lying"?

  • any declared lying OK as long as it is not mathematical? the topic is gigantic, huge, the whole truth and honesty and constructivism and dishonesty and lying and (in)transparency and acting and attractiveness and confidence and desire topic... endless... maybe something for but what about mathematical lying? impossible anyway because of mathematical rigor? how attractive is lying and confidence tricking and if it is attractive why? that will be a topic? isn't lying (at least on an extremely high level) and true pure mathematics exactly the opposite? is ultimately only mathematics able to disprove the most sophisticated lies and therefore there is no ultimate honesty (proving mechanism) beside mathematics?

Correct the MPNLL and prevening overstraing pages

  • don't forget to conclude and fully write sentences on the parallel language learning page and to correct the sentences on preventing overstrain

Missing topics?

  • the topics that I moved from the Main Page to here (and deleted on the Main Page) and that have not yet an own page are: perfection, "nature", information technology, mobility, flexibility, playfulness, experience, trial-and-error, technology/engineering<->mathematics-interactional development, attractiveness.


  • utilitarianism as an interesting but also a problematic concept (compared to mathematics or "mathematicism" - maybe that would be a good term)

Attractiveness and desire = mathematics?

  • attractiveness/desire simply and ultimately is mathematics. why did I take so long to realize that? it is the same. therefore, will be equally dedicated to the mathematics - actually directly but on an explicit way just indirectly. just written for people like me and other people who might not realize what mathematics really is directly without the indirect route over attractiveness/desire. I really have to justify my planned writing on like that, otherwise, it is ideologically impossible for me to justify what I will write there. compared to mathematics it is nothing. many words, worth nothing or almost nothing compared to what mathematics is. still, I will have to write the attractiveness/desire stuff just like other people have to work other daily and not really mathematical work. (Amendment of 2010-07-12: This section here again is wrong becaues it assumes or justifies an overambitious struggle for or towards "everything", End of the amendment.)

Compromising with reality

  • a new page with one of the following possible titles: compromising with reality, compromise with reality, compromises with reality
    • examples: biological integration, numeral systems, engineering generally. goal: continuous UTSARA compliance and ultimately mathematization


  • learning chess or other (relatively formal) games and mathematics (and engineering?)

Games generally / Games and mathematics

  • poker or other games where mathematics, but also luck, intransparency and confidence plays a role
  • playing games (chess-type games, power-type games, more conventional types of games like board games or card games), game theory, probability, statistics and (recreational) mathematics: how early to begin with? how much time to dedicate to it? how to combine it with pure mathematics and possibly (software) engineering? how much to play games physically (with one's own hands) and how much just to mathematically think about it? how much to develop software with games?
  • 3d computer games and mathematics and (software/hardware) engineering
  • and don't forget the games that have not been invented or developed yet
  • an infinite amount of moves in many games (but not chess, it is solvable) and an infinite amount of (potentially inventable) games
  • new page "games and mathematics"?

Restriction/Shortness of time

  • ultimately the question why the day only has 24 hours and childhood and early youth only have 12-16 years and life generally only has a limited amount of years: how to use time mathematically, semi-mathematically and non-mathematically?

Communication/Politics of mathematics?

  • why are mathematicians not or only to a limited degree able to stop "bad things happening on the planet"? is it a democracy issue? the few top mathematicians being somehow helpless and too few? so, do mathematicians need more "traction", more "effect", more influence, maybe even more "engineering"? some kind of interface to the real world in terms of "engineering", but not conventional engineering in the form of robots? Isn't it an oversimplification of the situation. it is an issue of both mathematicians and non-mathematicians alike? isn't it also a communications issue? but that is politics now and not mathematics. some kind of "politics of mathematics". does beside mathematics itself and the philosophy of mathematics and the didactics of mathematics itself also something like a "communication of mathematics" and even "politics of mathematics" exist? Conventional politics and "politics of mathematics"?

Distinction between mathematics and ...

  • Might a very specific concept/way of "non unmathematical engineering" exist? No, such a term or concept does not exist in mathematics and will not exist in mathematics (generally and because of time but the time explanation is probably only a secondary explanation). So, such an expression would just express an issue of "politics", "communication" or "learning/discovering" of mathematics. How important is it actually to be fully aware of this distinction between what mathematics is and what "politics", "communication" and "learning/discovering" mathematics is or might be? Probably just tremendously important and isn't it exactly this issue that I am constantly struggling with as far as mathematics is concerned?

Maximized (thought) process(es) transparency (on an intermediate level)

  • what are the practical and/or theoretical limits of (total/full/complete/ongoing/perfect/maximized/optimized/increased) transparency? everyday/daily? generally? ultimately? thinking every thought loud? but what is every thought? and what about technical/technological processes? just transparency in terms of (some but not all) artifacts of such processes?

Nutritional advice

  • what and when to eat?

Clothing advice (including functional clothing)

  • not to wear too many and too warm clothes, not to get accustomed to it from birth
  • don't eat when it is time, but when you are hungry (also a hint by the way that I received from the fellow university student a little bit more than a year ago)
  • ensuring movement diversity (including swimming, climbing, diving if possible)
  • the question of (un?)friendly scuffling/tussling among young children (of mainly male gender)
  • the question of laws concerning minimal clothing on the one hand and gender-specific clothing on the other hand. this is really an issue for me since it is not possible to strictly avoid the question of gender-specific clothing because of the minimum legal standards. Therefore, I suggest that no difference between gender is made generally. Children can decide it individually but generally I would discourage from clothing in a gender-specific way and as far as the minimal legal clothing standards are concerned, I would support that both genders use the more restrictive minimum legal standard, but it is the child's individual decision based on its personal preference and when it wants to conform with general society gender differences in terms of clothing and haircut, why not also accept it? On the other hand, how important are such gender issues really? Is it only the minimum legal standard that is creating the issue? I would just encourage for example the avoidance of gender stereotypes also in clothing and hairstyle but how much does it really matter? Does mathematics know gender? And if yes (but I think the answer is no), which ones and how many? No, the answer must be definitely no. I can hardly imagine of anything being more a real-world issue than gender, isn't it? But on, it might still matter.
  • clothing in the future: development of increasingly "functional" clothing that might make for example tradition or gender-related clothing issues more and more obsolete

the particularly important safety issue of ticks

  • I forgot one idea that I had in the evening unfortunately: I just wonder what that was: Now, I just remembered it: It is the issue of ticks which is really a grave safety issue: I have proposed doing robotics increasingly outside in natural environments and also do sports outside as much as possible (together with robots). But what about ticks? Ticks are able to transmit two very different kind of illnesses, one is an illness caused by a bacterium (borrelliosis) and no vaccination exists for it and treatment is relatively difficult (antibiotics) and the other illness is tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), against which at least a vaccination exists (but how risky might such a vaccination be?). so the questions are: vaccinate against TBE and if yes, only adults or also children and maybe even toddlers? And the other question is if the risk of borreliosis is not a reason why to abstain from certain outdoor activities because there is no vaccine against it. Also an issue would be constantly doing a tick check (checking one's own body, possibly with a mirror that should be carried when being outdoor, or a mutual body check), wearing appropriate clothing (especially shoes and socks, or in the future more advanced clothes?) and/or even use tick-repellent (but I would rather discourage the latter for several reasons, then better not to do outdoor robotics at all instead of using tick repellent), and carrying a mirror and a specialized tick-removal tweezer, I will move this section here to the appropriate page because it is UTSARA relevant in the next edits, another issue is when (after precipitation? temperature/season?, where? until which height?) ticks are most or more likely to be encountered, another issue is ticks being on the surface/fur of animals that have been roaming outside and are fondled or have physical contact with humans, so the tick issue is a complex issue for every human who personally goes or lives outdoors and/or whose animals move outdoors

Stop using paper for information processing

  • The stuff with not writing anymore on paper but instead only use computers and handheld devices and a various types of input devices (including digitizer tablets and possibly touchscreens and maybe also motion sensing controller as they are found in some video game consoles) and how (rarely) pens, pencils and (paint) brushes should or could still be used (here, the topic of painting and brushes is again, but on a very specific level and actually I am not even encouraging it too much since I prefer to ideologically "paint" but actually would even more prefer to just be a real mathematician but wouldn't that be a topic for yet another page?)
  • in order to not have to completely relinquish from the use of pen(cil) writing, diversify the range of digital input devices as much as possible and especially use digitizer/graph tablets from as early in childhood as possible and only use a pen, pencil or (paint) brush as rarely as possible/justifiable maybe for artistic purposes. However, a child should at least periodically have the chance to use or "try out" writing or painting with a pen, pencil or (paint) brush and only if a child is interested and still would like to do such conventional activities like using a pen, pencil or (paint) brush more often, you should encourage it to do more such activities and also acquire/organize/buy the necessary materials, otherwise not, because it simply is not sustainable environmentally.
  • do not use paper or books at all anymore in order to avoid deforestation and it only partially matters if forests are "managed" "sustainably" because it still involves cutting trees, moving them out of the forest, processing the wood to paper and transporting the paper to one's own location which means a lot of energy and fuel being used additionally for every sheet of paper. the computers and mobile devices have been produced anyway so it should be no problem to use computers and mobile devices a few hours more each day instead of paper, books and schoolbooks and the power that a computer or mobile device needs to run additionally a few minutes or hours more is less than the environmental impact of producing many dozen sheets of paper.

mathematics overcoming all differences and diversities?

  • only mathematics is also able to ultimately overcome all intermediate ideological differences, for example preference for prime numbers, colors, particular animal species, numeral systems, ...

the question of "intermediateness" or the intermediate level

thoughts that become or are reality

not saying anything instead of saying a lie / dishonest statement

  • Is one reason why people remain silent and do not talk too much that they prefer to say nothing instead of something that would be dishonest or only partially true or a "constructed truth"?

robotic issues

the importance of dancing in learning environments (with robots)

  • robots and dancing (with music) (children like to dance with music as soon as they are able to, it is quite astonishing)

robots and sports

  • robots and sports (in an ideal case all sports with robots)

as few robots as possible

  • environmental sustainability: try to produce as few robots as possible and make optimal use of them by mutual sharing (in an ideal case 24 x 7 use)

household robots

  • household robots and everyday robots (important)

open source robots and electronics

  • open source everyday electronic objects with daily testing opportunities
  • everything open source, as many robots as possible, software anyway, BIOS if possible, microprocessors if possible, trying out hardware household appliances etc. (But maths is open source anyway (and the UMIS has to be open source too) so again nothing more about maths unfortunately ...)

closed source robots

  • on the other hand closed source might also be a challenge, so for every individual preference something, but what about transparency? and privacy or copyright issues, in case the robots are from elsewhere?

interactions between animals and robots

robots for interactions with animals

  • specific interactive robots for animal-robot-interaction (adapted, size, speed, surface, smell, sound, sensing sensors) or trying to adjust as many robots that were not built with primary animal-robot-interaction in mind to animal-robot-interaction or something in between? or multipurpose robots from the beginning that only need slight modifications for an animal-robot-interaction?

mice and rats are particularly interested in robotics

  • it is astonishing how mice and possibly also rats are interested also to ride (let themselves by transported) by/on a robot, so maybe special mice- or rat-transportations robots (and even larger for small dogs too?) might be an idea or multipurpose robots being converted with an appropriate platform to mice- and rat-transportation robots

smell of a robot crucial

  • smell of the robots is crucial for animal-robot interaction, even more important than ultrasound

imitation, repairing and robotics

  • when an adult is performing an activity (for example repairing a computer or robot) while a child is watching, allow the child to do the same or a most similar activity as possible (for example allowing the child to mock repair an old, unused computer in case of a four years old child), if necessary with adequate/sufficient protective equipment (in this example, gloves that are small enough for a child's hand)
  • another idea is to let a robot imitate a child, either a (specialized) robot able to imitate movements of other entities or by controlling a human's or a robot's movements remotely. or the opposite, a child imitating a robot as long as the child is motivated and in case of imititating the robot as long as the child's interactions with humans kommen nicht zu kurz ("don't come too short").

the the-thing-that-is-asynchronous-to-my-body-problem

  • biggest and almost insurmountable problem of learning with robots, especially for a child: the (the) thing-that-is-asynchronous-to-my-body-problem.
    • The younger the child, the more significant the the-thing-that-is-outside-and-asynchronous-to-my-body-problem is.
    • Possible solutions: controlling by motion sensing remote controllers like in gaming consoles, but it is still asynchronous, it is just guided synchronously but still "another" entity and therefore to a certain degree asynchronous

maximize the mathematics potential of a robot

  • necessary (decisive also in terms of long-term sustainability) is also to get the maximum out of every robot in terms of mathematical topics and to try to connect it as meaningfully and closely as possible to the UMIS and search especially for topics or connections (theorems) that reach the axiomatic level of mathematics as closely as possible

minimize the number of robots being produced

  • every robot having been produced is actually one robot too much (mining and production: energy, (toxic) waste) so try at least to "squeeze" out the maths maximum of every robot

(keeping) animals and learning environments

  • don't forget the birds like swallows because they are used to fly in narrow spaces too so actually any species that is used to fly in narrow spaces might be suitable for being used in a building without major animal welfare concerns (but wouldn't every bird species, even those that fly also naturally in caves, still also fly at least partially in free air? and what might that imply for animal welfare in captivity?). Another issue would be to which extent it would be justifiable to also keep especially small and comparably intelligent birds (in a similar way like a mouse is small and comparably intelligent) like a sparrow indoors respectively within a building and if such just small bird species like a sparrow are "small and intelligent enough" to be kept indoors. Interesting is also that a bird baby like a swallow or sparrow baby also has a comparable close and "sensitive" relationship with its mother/parents because such a bird baby is mouth-to-mouth fed by its mother (parents) (although not breastfed like a mammalian baby, but/and what might be the difference?)
  • Actually the same section like above, so I will have to merge these two sections: Besides bats that share the unique mammalian properties of mice and rats, birds that have adapted to the evolutionary niche of living in enclosed spaces like caves (see also ) might also be kept within a building for interaction ... with flying robots? Difficult to assess, maybe also risky and overambitious, especially within a house with a low ceiling. But the idea with bats or naturally cave-dwelling birds and any possible interaction with robots might also be an idea.
  • It would be possible to feed the birds near one's own eating place in a similar way like the mice and rats, for example together with the bats (for example sitting on one or several bars or strings), so there would be rats, mice, bats, cave-flying birds and possibly even small dogs on or above the table. are these too many animals at the same time on or above the table? or other interactions not on/near the eating table but elsewhere?
  • ecdysozoa (especially insects) and robots? there are harmless and interesting flying insects like dragonflies (stable flight) and crane flies (looks like a large mosquito but is harmless and somehow curious) and maybe also some ordinary flies
  • and the chickens that produce the eggs... I have mentioned the chickens already elsewhere, the problem might be that mice or rats might be too curious towards them, so maybe the chickens could or should be kept (partially) outside, but what when it is cold, in winter? And shouldn't actually all animal pets (including the mice and rats) have the chance to also roam (partially) outside, maybe separated from the egg-producing chickens?
  • another interesting topic in terms of marine animals would be marine mammals like dolphins and maybe the most interesting animal species (beside the humans ;-) ) would be octopuses both with a tremendous potential for dolphin-robot and even more octopus-robot interactions (beware of some highly toxic octopus species!) but the questions would be how to keep them animal friendly: in a basin directly connected to the sea or in an artificial basin that is large enough and would have to be regulated within very narrow limits in terms of several water parameters? And would it be possible to immerse oneself into such a basin in order to interact with the dolphin and even more interesting with the octopus too or just dolphin-robot and octopus-robot interaction? And if it would be possible for an adult to go into such a basin when a dolphin or non-toxic octopus is in it, to which degrees would it also be possible and safe for a child? And what about ordinary fish species? Or marine living ecdysozoa like (for example homarus, (spiny) lobster, crabs)?
  • But the general question is just to which extent small terrestrial animals and especially mammals aren't simply the best in terms of interaction potential with humans and terrestrial robots because humans are terrestrial and also for a baby, a toddler or a young child, the primary element is and remains the soil/ground? But in the longer term, airborne and marine interactions might become more important.
  • not everybody can keep all animals: it also seems clear that there might be specialized places for animals and similar like a visit to a zoo. For example, dolphins and/or octopuses would only be kept in one single place and birds or bats maybe only in a few places or at least not everywhere and children who are already used to terrestrial robotics from interactions involving rats and mice might visit the specialized airborne and marine places for special interactions and robotic learning (therefor being more motivated for mathematics...) with flying or marine animals. And if a child would be particularly motivated or like a specific special location, it could also remain there for a longer time than the other children. The children could like that - especially in terms of swimming - also "train" or just develop and do their swimming abilities because a wide and natural range of movements is important.
  • in case of all animals (mammals including bats and birds) but also especially in case of dolphins and possibly even more octopuses, it might be important to let a dolphin and even more an octopus baby interact with a robot that is adapted to its age or development: So, for example an octopus baby should have the chance to learn from birth slowly but steadily to safely and positively interact with and learn from an appropriate robot that is adapted to the developmental state of the octopus baby which would be interesting because little is known about their development and what kind of robots might be best suited.

educational subjects

  • in terms of "educational subjects" or "timetable(s), it might be recommendable to have the following principle: Maximize/prefer mathematics over all other "subjects" and the more intelligent and/or motivated a child is, the more let it learn pure mathematics in the most axiomatically (non-conventional) possible way. So the most intelligent children might only do mathematics and very little robotics and the older they get, the less robotics they would do. But the majority of children would probably also do as much mathematics as possible, but also a learn with a lot of robots (including animal-robot-interactions) while also trying to understand as much mathematics as possible from early age with the help of their adult mathematics teachers, the UMIS and the robots.

mathematics, blindness and neural networks

  • the seeing abilities of homo sapiens / homo sapiens and their/her/his eyes - maybe a disadvantage even?
  • the blind mathematician and/or (to which extent) is mathematics learning a purely neural network issue (and what might it mean for the philosophy of mathematics?, see Wikipedia's corresponding page) and what might it mean in terms of vision or senses?
  • what does it mean (and isn't it actually a "good sign"?) that mathematics is actually something for ultra-intelligent and at the same time blind people? what might it mean that mathematics is maybe even best learned by people having no vision in terms of real senses? and what might it mean in the context of rats and mice who have only limited vision? primate species (including humans) and some bird species have very good vision. so, might that mean that exactly these species have actually a disadvantage of becoming good mathematicians? would it be a chance for every person learning mathematics to be temporarily have no vision just to appreciate and maybe realize more what mathematics might be? so, is the future blind animals or animals with limited vision like rats and mice becoming better and better in mathematics? or aren't they just being challenged by having their too good sense, for example smell? and isn't it just a neural network issue: the human brain being complex enough because it has this amazing vision and manual abilities but actually now - maybe for the first time - actually not needing exactly these two abilities (vision and hands) when it comes to mathematics learning? would the ultimate, perfectly mathematized "entity" even have to be blind ("blind" in terms of all senses, not only vision) or as "blind" as possible in order to really be committed to mathematics? (so, this issue might also be an animal-and-mathematics issue and also a Gestalt psychology, so the question might be if a "abstract-formal (or purely neural network?) Gestalt psychology" and maybe an "abstract-formal constructivism" exist(s) where vision plays no role and that is purely formal and abstract?)
  • being blind or having to be(come) blind in order to appreciate and realize the true extent of beauty in/of mathematics? preventing any distraction or "corruption" from/by the real world and its beauty and beauties? therefore, the truly "daring beauty" would be or already is purely mathematical?
  • so, if learning mathematics is independent totally or to a significant degree of one's own vision abilities - is learning mathematics a neural network (abilities) issue? is the neural network complexity of an entity the same or a synonym with intelligence? and what might it mean for the philosophy of mathematics? would you develop the wrong/incorrect mathematics if you have the wrong neural network? or wouldn't the experiments from physics prevent that? but in order to read the phenomenons of nature that you have measured with measuring devices, isn't it vision that you need again or could the measuring results also be measured without vision (there is an own branch in mathematics (independent of physics) dedicated to measuring).
  • always this distinction between the "ideology" "stuff" (actually also a problematic word) respectively content and what it really means for learning environments today and now: so just saying that a biologically dense transhumanist human-animal-hybrid is the future and that mathematics is ultimately even more the future might be interesting and motivating is one thing - but then to ask oneself and also answer the question what it means in terms of real ideas for real learning environments that can/could be started now is another challenge and maybe the more important challenge if one really wants to begin now (in the year 2010 or 2011) with developing real new learning environments for achieving such a vision or such (ideological) visions. And isn't both necessary and mutually dependent (in terms of having the idea for education respectively making the vision one day true)? The ideological vision and the educational down-to-earth idea?

mathematics knowledge increasingly necessary (unumgänglich) the more complex engineering and physics becomes

  • another question concerns the relationship respectively discrepancy between conventionally digitally microprocessor-based robotics and analogous (neural network and/or circuitry) robotics (the latter being much more difficult). There is also the issue of DNA- or other-protein-based "computing" or "information processing" (at the moment probably a mainly biological, chemical or biochemical science) and also the issue of quantum computing which is really difficult and one of the most (mathematically) difficult areas of physics and especially the last point (quantum computing) makes it again and even more clear how important just mathematics is because it is the only science that covers all these somehow already existing or emerging technological possibilities for information processing and robotics. You might be able to engineer with conventional digital microprocessors fairly well even with not so much mathematical knowledge, but as soon as you want to progress or proceed to the mathematically really difficult technologies like analogous (neural network) circuits, maybe DNA-based or protein-based engineering and most certainly quantum computing, you absolutely need the necessary mathematical knowledge. But on the other hand, shouldn't that be the main justification for mathematics? Shouldn't it be the opposite way around? Engineering in order to discover mathematics? The consideration three sentences before is a justification for mathematics on an intermediate level, yes, but only on an intermediate level. Ultimately, mathematics is self-sufficient (if and only if there is nothing even more universal).

maximize diversity on the intermediate level

  • learning ((on) the "intermediate level"): maximized diversity in mathematical axiomatic systems (if there are several competing), diversity in learning analogous neural system(s) design paradigms, diversity in learning (and using) formal languages, diversity in learning and using operating systems and microprocessor design paradigms, learning as many diverse programming language(s), database, network and distributed systems engineering (paradigms) as (early as?) possible

learning and learning how to learn

  • not (only) learn(ing), but to learn how to learn. mathematike-techne in both senses: mathematics and learning how to learn. not learning at age eleven (doz_b) what the ...(take an event or people from the past discussed in primary school history tuition)... did or wore ...(usually a few hundred or thousand)... years ago. The same is indirectly true also for conventional life science ("biology", "chemistry", "physics, ...) tuition. Instead learn how to learn. Ultimately - no, not ultimately - as far as science, technology and the humanities ..., no not the humanities, at least not the humanities as far as being human is concerned) are concerned, it is mathematics. But I have to admit that the relationship between mathematics, the humanities, physics and life sciences is more complicated than I thought. Because somehow, I have just realized that some aspects of some humanities might indeed be more important even than mathematics. But that still does not mean that learning is more important in every context than learning how to learn. In fact, learning how to learn is in most contexts more important than learning, but not on the ultimate level because isn't it wrong to say "learning how to learn" instead of just "learning" modesty, gratefulness, self-restriction, humbleness - or is it both learning and learning how to learn also when the ultimate is concerned? (A/The (mathematical? analogous neural network?) definition of learning how to learn and learning is missing, so the discussion about this topic is unclear and only partially sensible.)

information, conservation, tradition, memory, awareness, order and chaos

  • algodat as a school subject
  • mixture/mixing of "everything" with insufficient order
  • no/insufficient awareness, no/insufficient memory for (one's own) culture
  • mathematics as the only possibility to densify (becoming more dense) without losing memory, awareness and living tradition and memory
  • what is bad enough to not be preserved in the present world of nowadays? is hardly anything bad enough to not be preserved? What of the present world should not be preserved in which form?
  • the risk of identity loss and information chaos
  • standardization and new creations "in between" respectively comprising the traditional difference
  • important information and unimportant information. on the one hand, it is necessary to distinguish between important and less important information, to prioritize information. but on the other hand it is also important to keep all information elsewhere. the process of deciding which information

problem of storage of old information. what kind of storage is necessary where? where and how to store it? how and how often access it? how much awareness for the information? possible to preserve it in a maximally alive state? alle können alles or division into a range between two extreme ends: ultimately conservative, ultimately progressive. lose the floor/ground under one's own feet

  • example: multimodal multiple parallel natural natural language learning: what kind of mixing up of the language up to which state is still justifiable? idiolects: several idiolects per (foreign or "foreign") language per person), dialects, standardized dialects, official language(s. what if a parent wants to teach a child her/his orginal idiolect but does not know the language well enough so that only a teacher can provide the necessary tuition? and what if no teachers for that language can be found or are available anymore? (make an own section on the MMPNNLL page and a reference to that section instead of the text here)
  • humanness in the context of the topic in this section here (tradition, ...)

(the ultimate) defeat (or victory)

  • "defeat" (or "victory") on the intermediate level (for example wrestling, chess)
  • "defeat" (or "victory"? - no) on the ultimate level
  • neither "defeat" nor "victory": "draw"
  • when one is defeated, one learns two things: First one might have been able to learn from the previous interaction with the "winner" more than the "winner" could learn. Secondly, one has to learn to cope with "defeat".
  • the challenge of learning to be defeated after a (long) series of "victories".
  • (to which/what extent) is a "victory" (really) a victory? (to which extent) is a "defeat" (really) a defeat? does "defeat" and "victory" matter? if yes/no, why (not)?

(note of 2012-04-01: - just discovered this topic/section on this website here. Now, - would not even have the idea to write about this topic, keywords (concepts) like "defeat" or "victory" don't appear in my vocabulary (thinking) at the moment, - probably thought about one of my eschatological visions (- will have to write more about it), but - would hardly use these two keywords now even for this particular (problematic and in some ways also irrelevant, in the real (farer) future) eschatological vision; generally, developments/actions/processes should be based on negotiations and cooperation, not competition, especially not when there is something like a "victory" or a "defeat" (in an ideal, wonderful-dream-like case, everything would quasi amazingly arise/outcome "anyway", but this is another topic (paradise, ultimate l..., eschatology (unclear anyway too (but - remember fall 2011, an expectation)))); even when playing chess, - would try to do it in a cooperative way with discussing the moves of both sides; ah, now, - remember it, it was probably really because - played chess against real people and discovered how difficult it is for me to both win and lose (the only way - was satisfied when - actually could have won but voluntarily lost; this might now be differently, losing might be no problem anymore for me, but winning in chess would be more difficult, especially remaining (especially inwardly) likeable when winning); end of the note of 2012-04-01. proctecting the weak. this is a new topio, maybe, - should already have mentioned it here. because of that, there is no "victory" anyway, also not on an intermediate level; normally playing chess (or sports, - forgot that, but there, robotics is more important anyway at least in terms of what - am proposing) might be an exception from it.)

admnistrative and technical issues

For additinal ideas for administrative and technical issues, see also the page administrative and technical issues.