NAME OF REFEREE: 178-380
TITLE OF PAPER: Info-computational Constructivism
1. CONTENT SUMMARY:
What are the main objectives and contributions of this paper?
The paper discusses the relation between constructivism and the info-computational framework that the
author has been developing over a number of years. The resulting position is a "Computational
Constructive Realism".
Is one of the questions of the CFP addressed,
and if yes is it done satisfactorily?
While the paper does address the relation between computation(alism) and constructivism, the two (groups
of) questions raised in the special issue CFP are not really addressed directly or explicitly. Some of the subquestions are mentioned in the end, but they are not really addressed in any detail. The problem is that the
special issue, according to the CFP, is about computational constructivism, i.e. the use of computational
modeling in constructivist research, whereas the paper is rather about a "constructivist
computationalism", i.e. about computationalism as philosophical theory rather than computational modeling
as scientific practice. So in that sense, strictly speaking, the paper could very well be considered out of
scope for the special issue.
On the other hand, obviously the paper does address the relation between computation and knowledge
construction, and computational modeling is mentioned (in passing) a couple of times (e.g. the need for
multiscale or multiresolutional modeling), so if the editors interpreted the CFP sufficiently broadly and the
author could revise the paper to better address some of the questions raised in the CFP, then the paper
might be a useful addition to the special issue after all.
2. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONTENT:
Does the paper bring an important contribution
to constructivist approaches, in particular non-dualizing philosophy?
[ ] High
[X] Medium
[ ] Low
[X] I am familiar with constructivist approaches
[X] I am familiar with non-dualizing philosophy
The paper does address the relation between constructivism and other theoretical frameworks, so in that
sense it makes a contribution to constructivist research. It should be noted though that an actual
contribution can only be made if the terminologies of different frameworks are handled carefully and
much care is taken to identify conceptual overlaps and divergences. This is not always the case in this
paper though: for example, when the author writes (page 3) that "[t]he world exists independently from us"
and "reality is made of informational structures", this is the exact opposite(!) of the way most (radical)
constructivists use the terms "reality" and "world". It is actually not clear to me whether the author
understands this or not. If she understands this, then why does she insist on using the terms the other way
round (in a constructivist journal)?
This makes many statements difficult t to interpret. For example, when the author attributes to Zeilinger (who
deals with quantum physics) the suggestion of "the possibility of seeing information and reality as one",
which reality are we talking about: the observer-independent one or the observer-dependent one (in Kantian
terms, noumena or phenomena)? Similarly, the author describes Floridi's position informational structural
realism as taking "information to be the fabric of the universe (for an agent)", but the part added in
parentheses is of course absolutely crucial here, so which universe are we talking about: the observerindependent or the observer-dependent? One way of answering that question would to be address the
question of whether or not information was the fabric of the universe before there were living systems
(agents, observers). Similarly, cf. below, did nature compute before there were living systems? Some people
would say yes (e.g. Wolfram, I think), some people would say no. (And if you say no, then why speak of
"computing nature" in the first place?)
3. ORIGINALITY OF CONCEPT(S):
Do the concepts discussed in the paper have innovative character?
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
High
Medium
Low
N/A
The effort to formulate a "constructive realism" is of course innovative, because constructivism and
realism are usually considered to be at odds with each other. Then again, if the type of realism is about
observer-dependent 'reality' (cf. above) rather than observer-independent reality, then constructivism and
realism are not at odds in the first place.
4. CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTIVE:
Does the paper clearly establish its main point and stay
focused and deliver on this objective?
[X] Yes
[ ] No
5. CLARITY OF PRESENTATION:
How good are the organization, sentence structure, spelling,
figures, and tables?
[ ] Excellent
[X] Good (but should be corrected by an English native speaker)
[ ] Poor (needs substantial improvements)
There are quite many language errors, e.g. of the type "Present article even
offer ...".
6.
INTERDISCIPLINARITY:
What is the relevance of the paper to an interdisciplinary readership?
[X] High
[ ] Medium
[ ] Low
(could benefit from additional explanations)
(uses too much discipline-specific jargon)
Very relevant to an interdisciplinary (and inter-framework) readership, but, as discussed above, the
terminology needs to be clarified to really help clarify things. For example, the term "morphological
computation" seems to be used in a way that is quite different from the specific way it is used in
embodied AI, where, as far as I can, the term comes form.
Even more importantly, the concepts of "natural computation" and "computing nature" remain unclear; since
the paper does not really provide any clear definition of computation, it is unclear how radical these claims
are. The author's sentence (page 16) "Info-computational framework enables unified understanding of
knowledge generation in cognizing agents, from the simplest living forms to the most complex ones, building
on two basic concepts: information (structure) and computation (process)" would seem to indicate that it only
makes to speak of information and computation where you have living systems (agents, observers). But on
the other hand the term "computing nature" would seems to indicate (could be interpreted as saying)that
nature already computed before living systems existed - otherwise it is not "nature", but "life" or "life forms"
that compute(s).
7. SUGGESTIONS TO AUTHOR FOR IMPROVING THIS PAPER:
Many suggestion have already been made above. The central terminology needs to be (1) made much
clearer, and (2) more clearly related to constructivist terminology (given the nature and readership of the
journal). Also, more explicit/focused discussion of the questions raised in the special issue would of course
be desirable if the paper was to be included in the special issue.