The word “converse” comes from the union of two Latin roots, “cum” means “with,” and versare means “to go around,” so that conversation originally means “to go around with” another. That is why in this article my question will be: What happens when those who talk go around together, and what happens there with emotions, language and reason? [Curator’s translation]

The author proposes: 1. That a lineage of living systems is constituted by the reproductive conservation of a manner of living under the form of an ontogenic phenotype. 2. That language is a manner of living in recurrent consensual coordinations of consensual coordinations of actions. 3. That the human manner of living en tails among other things, a braiding of languaging and emotioning that we call.conversation. 4. That human beings arise in the history of bipedal primates with the origin of language, and the constitution of a lineage defined by the conservation of an ontogenic phenotype that includes conversations as part of it. 5. That the magnitude of the involvement of the brain and anatomy of the larynx and face in speech as our main manner of languaging indicate that language cannot have arisen later than two to three millions year ago. 6. That rationally pertains to the operational coherences of languaging and that different rational domains are constituted by different basic notions that are accepted a priori. That is, on preference. 7. That responsibility and freedom are a function of our awareness of the participation of our emotions (preferences) in the constitution of the rational domains in which we operate.

To answer the question about the degree of participation of genetic and environmental factors in determining the characteristics of a human being, so that we can understand both its biological and social significance, we propose to reflect on the following points: (1) What kind of system is a living thing? (2) What happens in the interactions of a living being with the environment?, and (3) What do the phenomena of heredity and genetic determination consist of? [Curator’s translation]

In this article in honor of my friend and teacher, Joaquín Luco, I want to present, in a succinct and schematic way, my vision of the learning phenomenon. Naturally, what I will say here does not come out of nowhere but is rather based on my history as a biologist in Chile, where I have had the opportunity to learn from Luco what I would never have been able to learn anywhere else in the world. For this, this work is also my expression of gratitude to him. [Curator’s translation]

The paper outlines the significant influence of constructivism in contemporary science and mathematics education, and emphasises the central role that epistemology plays in constructivist theory and practice. It is claimed that despite the anti-empiricism of much constructivist writing, in most forms its epistemology is nevertheless firmly empiricist. In particular it is subject-centered and experience-based. It is argued that its relativist, if not skeptical conclusions, only follow given these empiricist assumptions. Further it is suggested that such assumptions belong to Aristotelian science, and were effectively overthrown with the modern science of Galileo and Newton. Thus constructivism cannot provide understanding of post-Aristotelian science.

The answers to these two questions would have been obvious years ago: Human beings, of course, machines are instruments of human design! But now days when we speak so much of progress, science and technology as if progress, science and technology were in themselves values to be venerated, there are many people that think that machines as they become more and more complex and intelligent through human design, may in fact become alive so that they may supplant us as a natural outcome of that very venerated progress and expansion of intelligence. Also many people seems to think that evolution is changing its nature so that technology is becoming the guiding force in the flow of the cosmic change in relation to us. I do not hold this view. I do not look at progress, science or technology as if they were values in themselves, nor do I think that biological or cosmic evolution is changing its nature or character. I think that the question that we human beings must face is that of what do we want to happen to us, not a question of knowledge or progress. The question that we must face is not about the relation of biology with technology, or about the relation between art and technology, nor about the relation between knowledge and reality, nor even about whether or not metadesign shapes our brains. I think that the question that we must face at this moment of our history is about our desires and about whether we want or not to be responsible of our desires.

Purpose: In line with the cognitive viewpoint on the phenomenon of information, the constructivist tradition based on Maturana and Varela’s theory of knowing, and some aspects of Shannon’s theory of communication, the purpose of this paper is to shed more light on the role of information, data, and knowledge in the cognitive system (domain) of the observer. Design/methodology/approach – In addition to the literature review, a proposed description of the communication and knowledge acquisition processes within the observer’s cognitive system/domain is elaborated. Findings: The paper recognizes communication and knowledge acquisition as separate processes based on two roles of information within the observer’s cognitive system, which are emphasized. The first role is connected with the appropriate communication aspects of Shannon’s theory related to encoding cognitive entities in the cognitive domain as data representations for calculating their informativeness. The second role involves establishing relations between cognitive entities encoded as data representations through the knowledge acquisition process in the observer’s cognitive domain. Originality/value – In this way, according to the cognitive viewpoint, communication and knowledge acquisition processes are recognized as important aspects of the cognitive process as a whole. In line with such a theoretical approach, the paper seeks to provide an extension of Shannon’s original idea, intending to involve the observer’s knowledge structure as an important framework for the deepening of information theory.

Key words: constructivism, data, communication process, information, knowledge, knowledge acquisition process, cognitive process, cognitive viewpoint.

Excerpt: Der Begriff „konstruktivistisch“ gehört gegenwärtig sowohl in der Didaktik wie in den Grundlagenwissenschaften zu einem der am heftigsten diskutierten Begriffe. So sieht We1nert in einer puristischen Anwendung dieser Sichtweisen eine Sackgasse für künftige Forschung (Weinert 1996, S. 10); Klauer (1999) fragt, ob es sich bei diesen Sichtweisen nicht um „alten Wein in neuen Schläuchen“ handele, und Hoops führt die Konjunktur des Begriffes darauf zurück, dass es zur Zeit „chic [seif], ‚Konstruktivist‘ zu sein“ (Hoops 1998, S. 229). Nach Einschätzung Gerstenmaiers und Mandls handelt es sich dagegen bei den gemäßigt konstruktivistischen Sichtweisen „um den vielleicht vielversprechendsten Rahmen für eine Analyse und Förderung von Wissenserwerbsprozessen in den unterschiedlichsten sozialen Kontexten“ (Gerstenmaier/Mandl 1995, S. 883/884). Die Diskussion verläuft dabei interdisziplinär in der Philosophie, Neurobiologie, Soziologie, Psychologie und Pädagogik; sie wird ausgesprochen kontrovers, teilweise auch, insbesondere in ihren erkenntnistheoretischen Facetten, polemisch geführt. Die zunächst in den USA geführte Diskussion hat längst auch die deutsche Erkenntnistheorie, Psychologie, Pädagogik und in jüngster Zeit verstärkt auch die Fachdidaktiken erreicht. Im Bereich der Lehrerfortbildung und der zweiten Phase haben konstruktivistische Theorien zur Zeit Hochkonjunktur.