From Lukasgirtanner
(Redirected from Babies)
Jump to: navigation, search

Until 2010-05-19 (19th of May 2010), this page here was written in a not really rational way and it completely lacked scientific standards. All of the previous content that did not conform with a certain degree of "objectivity" (what is that?) will have to be moved to a new, separate page and declared as having a limited degree of objectivity and being very problematic and not UTSARA compliant. The last (too unscientific) version of this page here can be found at and that content will have to be moved to a new page and declared as being problematic and being not at all UTSARA compliant.

Does a baby need limits? And if yes, why and what kind of limits? Isn't this question the most important new topic that will be on this page here? Should a baby be limited in the right/correct way and is the right/correct way of limiting a baby the challenge?

Is limiting the general learning ability of a baby by simply following the learning tradition of one's own culture, civilization or society a good way of limiting a baby? Probably not. Shouldn't exactly these kinds of limits be avoided? But what kind of other limits might indeed be necessary?

A baby could/might even be limitless somehow on an abstract level (really, isn't mathematics only limitless?), but even if a baby would be limitless (but probably in another way than mathematics), wouldn't a baby have to be limited because only mathematics should be limitless?

Does the the question remain if an "abstract baby" is limitless? But what is an abstract baby? Is it a scientific or objective concept or something else? And the mother(person)? Is it recommendable to criticize such problematic concepts and focus (primarily? only?) on down-to-earth didactics, see didactics of mathematics? Probably yes. But what does the word "primarily?" of the previous sentence mean? Is there still something else? Hopefully not. But isn't "hope" insufficient and not at all compliant with UTSARA?

There is also a Talk:Baby page that I should not forget to change too.

What matters most:

  • To minimize the likelihood that a baby develops into an entity that is not compliant with UTSARA to a likelihood of (exactly or sufficiently close to?) zero with ideally a non-existent (or sufficiently small?) probability of error
  • The continuous interpretation of the content and rules that are already part of UTSARA in terms of what it might mean for setting limits to a baby
  • Preserving the cognitive openness, flexibility, adaptability, ease and speed of learning ability of a baby while at the same time constantly limiting all developments of the baby that might not comply with UTSARA from the beginning
  • Constantly adapt general UTSARA (especially but not only its specific implications) to new problematic developments of a baby
  • To identify a general "multidimensional" (or mathematically defined) range (including and especially all undesirable areas within this range) to which a baby could develop with prevention priorities on which limiting and guiding principles (from general to specific) of the baby's development are based and are continuously improved (the conventional word would be "education") (this sentence is not really good yet, it has a correct grammar, but is complicated to read)
  • To avoid overstraining the baby or demand too much from a baby, see preventing overstrain

To do (2010-06-14):

  • This baby page here might have to be rewritten first anyway (the second version here and first version (see above link) being merged to one single page)
  • the neoteny and the general learning ability of a baby are still native and uninfluenced by culture and society ("limitlessness" of a baby in the positive sense).
  • Pregnancy, breastfeeding (and the enormous importance of breastfeeding for any mammalian baby, including a human baby), sensitivity and bonding between mother and baby as vital for the baby's identity and development. The foundation for peace, love and happiness? (what about the far/long-term future? is it predictable?)
  • The baby's innate ability and motivation to outreach (both physically, emotionally and cognitively) into and learn in an environment that is as diverse and stimulating as possible (floor, water, people, animals, robots, mathematics(?))
  • Problematic: Organizing into a "biological", mathematical and abstract baby? (almost certainly not compliant with UTSARA)
  • Problematic: Symbiotic relationship with the mother? And/or the opposite (some kind of struggle?) too?
  • To distinguish a baby page version for the mirror page that contains only the unproblematic content and a page here with a more complex and transparent, but also more problematic baby page?
  • Where to discuss a baby from another species than homo sapiens? On a separate page? Probably yes, because this page here is for readers of the species homo sapiens because other species are not able to read, aren't they? Or still (partially?) combine? Neoteny and curiosity in non-human species generally and as a baby? Which groups might be of particular interest? A mammalian baby? A (Non-)Primates, Euarchont-a/-oglires, Aves, Chiroptera, Rodentia, Cetacea, Amniota, Tetrapoda, Deuterostomia<->Protostomia, Ecdysozoa/Arthropoda (large and diverse), Mollusca/Cephalopoda baby? What about a non-Eumetazoa (for example plant) and Non-eucaryote baby? What about a "protein", "stone" or "stellar system" "baby"? Matter, time, energy and space baby? Physics and mathematics (and the abstract) baby? (to which extent) is such a discussion UTSARA compliant and/or belongs to such a page here? What is common in every baby or in a baby with a certain degree of similarity within its group (a mammalian baby)? And what about mathematics?