Excerpt: Although I do not agree with the author’s claim that the schema mechanism corresponds to Piaget’s constructivist theory, I nonetheless consider Drescher’s approach as a kind of Constructivism and his research as a pioneering contribution to the application of Constructivism in AI tasks.

In this paper we introduce the concept of Knowledge Cooperation, a participative approach to Knowledge Management based on a constructivist knowledge model. We then present its implementation in the weak ties knowledge network CoRe, a distributed Community of Practice of researchers (“Community of Research”) supported by an online platform that implements a Web 2.0 approach based on MOODLE.

This chapter presents a design for an e-collaboration environment and its implementation with MOODLE within the context of a research knowledge network at a university. The first part introduces our constructivist knowledge model and then presents what we call a “design for meaning,” explaining its theoretical foundation and developing its conceptual features. In the second part we show how we have implemented this concept with MOODLE to support a community-based knowledge network of researchers at our university and we reflect on the experiences that we have collected during this 3-year pilot project.

Community learning in TELEs (Technology Enhanced Learning Environments) is supported by several kinds of online community interactions, for example in forums and wikis. I suggest that a radical constructivist theory of knowledge could shed new light on these written interactions and provide some relevant benefits to social SRL (Self-Regulated Learning) in a CSCL (Computer Supported Cooperative Learning) environment. After a short introduction to my radical constructivist perspective, I present practical recommendations for written community interactions interpreted in the light of that perspective. I conclude by linking them to demands that CSCL imposes onto SRL.

Models of cognition and language currently in use as frameworks for computer applications present a clear disequilibrium: they neglect productive mental activities, as for instance synthesis, and over-estimate receptive ones, as analysis. The paper focuses on the Kantian concept of object-synthesis as a basic mental mechanism and underlines its importance for an equilibrated model of cognitive processing. Integration of the Kantian approach with Ceccato’s model of mental operations could allow to implement synthetic operations in computer applications. A syntactic parser (von Glasersfeld and Pisani, 1970) which implements Ceccato’s approach to cognition, semantics and linguistics is reproposed to the attention of AI researchers: it could be used as a basis for a modern implementation of object-synthesis in knowledge representation and natural language processing.

Open peer commentary on the target article “Arguments Opposing the Radicalism of Radical Constructivism” by Gernot Saalmann. First paragraph: I appreciate Saalmann’s recognition that “there are considerable differences amongst the authors” and that these “have changed their opinions in the course of time” (§3); but given this, what are the consequences for an outline of the theses of radical constructivism (RC)? Which approach is best for outlining a theory of knowing under these hindering conditions? My suggestion would be to use a method specifically developed for this kind of situation and to present it explicitly, or, if it does not yet exist, to develop one.

Purpose: Yerkish is an artificial language created in 1971 for the specific purpose of exploring the linguistic potential of nonhuman primates. The aim of this paper is to remind the research community of some important issues and concepts related to Yerkish that seem to have been forgotten or appear to be distorted. These are, particularly, its success, its promising aspects for future research and last but not least that it was Ernst von Glasersfeld who invented Yerkish: he coined the term “lexigrams,” created the first 120 of them and designed the grammar that regulated their combination. Design: The first part of this paper begins with a short outline of the context in which the Yerkish language originated: the original LANA project. It continues by presenting the language itself in more detail: first, its design, focusing on its “lexigrams” and its “correlational” grammar (the connective functions or “correlators” and the combinations of lexigrams, or “correlations”), and then its use by the chimpanzee Lana in formulating sentences. The second part gives a brief introduction to the foundation of Yerkish in Silvio Ceccato’s Operational Methodology, particularly his idea of the correlational structure of thought and concludes with the main insights that can be derived from the Yerkish experiment seen in the light of Operational Methodology. Findings: Lana’s success in language learning and the success of Yerkish during the past decades are probably due to the characteristics of Yerkish, particularly its foundation in operational methodology. The operation of correlation could be what constitutes thinking in a chimpanzee and an attentional system could be what delivers the mental content that correlation assembles into triads and networks. Research implications: Since no other assessment or explanation of Lana’s performances has considered these foundational issues (findings), a new research project or program should validate the above-mentioned hypotheses, particularly the correlational structure of chimpanzee thinking.

Key words: Yerkish, artificial language, correlational grammar, operational methodology, Silvio Ceccato, machine translation, animal communication

Open peer commentary on the target article “Who Conceives of Society?” by Ernst von Glasersfeld. First paragraph: Issues such as social interaction and communication play an essential role in my recent approach to knowledge management called “Knowledge Cooperation”, conceived as “the participative cultivation of knowledge in a voluntary, informal social group”. Radical Constructivism (RC) provides a substantial support to the foundations of this approach, which aims at equilibrating intellectual and social capital. So I warmly welcome Ernst von Glasersfeld’s clarification of the constructivist position in regard to “society.”