Abstract
The main purpose of this Conversational Participative Session is to support an open forum for the identifications of the more effective means for 1) Inter-Disciplinary Communications and/or 2) Transferring Knowledge to the Society at large. Among the expected outcomes of this session are the following:

1. To identify feasible and effective ways that might be implemented: (1) in future conferences organized by the International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, and  (2) by the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics in its both versions: English (JSCI) and Spanish (RISCI), and potentially by other journals and conferences.

2. To provide input to the attendees of this sessions so they feel enabled to write reflection based invited or position papers, which will be included in the post-conference edition of the conference proceedings with no additional costs for the respective authors. The best of these papers will also be published in the Journal with no additional cost for the respective author. These papers will be distinguished as “invited papers” or “position papers”

Abstract
Is it possible to understand the mind from few basic principles? The talk describes steps towards such a theory of the mind. Known first principles include mechanisms of concepts, emotions, the knowledge instinct, the mind hierarchy, and dynamic logic (DL). DL is a basis for a mathematical theory of learning, combining the first principles into a hierarchical mental system. Orders of magnitude improvements are achieved in pattern recognition, data mining, information integration, financial predictions. The talk describes how does language interact with cognition? What are the mechanisms of higher cognitive abilities? What is the beautiful? Why does music, "just sounds," affect us emotionally? Why did these abilities emerge in evolution? Darwin called music "the greatest mystery." The DL model gives answers and testable predictions. Some explanations are experimentally confirmed, others remain to be tested in future.

Abstract
Creative excellence in interdisciplinary discovering and educating demands an open-mindedness to fresh ways of thinking.  This paper explores a novel method of achieving such excellence: Scientists-in-training could benefit from paying more attention to language. It argues that, in contrast to the conventional, single-minded approach to scientific training that relies so heavily upon analytical problem solving, we should nurture the development of imagino-analytical expertise so that each investigator can make richer interpretations of their glimpses of Nature. Specifically, it will be argued that by opening the minds of scientists-in-training to the intellectually versatile and illuminating expressions of Wallace Stevens, we strengthen their preparation for a life of discovering, for seeing and reporting in a flickering world of words.  By situating Stevens in science education, we will come to recognize more fully how categories and the act of naming – our use of language – limit the scientific method. Ultimately, by seeing the prime goal of education as the pursuit of contextual self-description – the description of moving Self-in-changing World – we position ourselves to guide a new generation of scientists in the process of becoming tomorrow’s imagino-analytical leaders.

Abstract
We describe a multi-disciplinary system model for determining decision making strategies based upon the ability to perform data mining and pattern discovery utilizing open source actionable information to prepare for specific events or situations from multiple information sources. We focus on combining detection theory with game theory for classifying ships in Arctic Ocean to verify ship reporting. More specifically, detection theory is used to determine probability of deciding if a ship or certain ship class is present or not. We use game theory to fuse information for optimal decision making on ship classification. Hierarchy game theory framework enables complex modeling of data in probabilistic modeling. However, applicability to big data is complicated by the difficulties of inference in complex probabilistic models, and by computational constraints. We provide a framework for fusing sensor inputs to help compare if the information of a ship matches its AIS reporting requirements using mixed probabilities from game theory. Our method can be further applied to optimizing other choke point scenarios where a decision is needed for classification of ground assets or signals. We model impact on decision making on accuracy by adding more parameters or sensors to the decision making process as sensitivity analysis.

Abstract
Most online courses have integrated synchronous and asynchronous information technologies to support affective and cognitive students’ outcomes. Many studies stated that affective outcomes like satisfaction, anxiety, autonomy, and motivation were improved when students use information technologies for their learning. However, cognitive outcomes were mainly measured with learning effectiveness as expressed by students and rarely with students’ performance. When measured using the final marks at the end of the course, students’ performance offers a more “objective” way to evaluate the effect of the use of technologies. Our research interests deal with studying the effect of webinar use on students’ marks.

Abstract
Mobility has become a part of our daily life and a key feature of current IT projects. This talk will give an overview to the rapid development and relevance of mobility in projects, as well as address some of the problems that arise in parallel. To illustrate the message of the talk, two current sample projects will be shown.

Abstract
Professor Andrés Tremante is a former President of the Foundation for Research and Development of the University Simón Bolivar in Caracas, Venezuela (Fundación de Investigación y Desarrollo: FUNINDES). This Foundation was created 25 years ago with the objective of integrating academic activities among themselves and with the Industry and Society at large.  During 25 years FUNINDES integrated Research, Education, and Real Life Problem Solving through industrial projects which, in turn, helped in the financial support of both the University and the individual professors. The experience showed that this synergic relationship has been producing, and being produced by, Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Communication, because real life problem usually need this multi-dimensional interdisciplinarity in order to effectively approach them. Consequently, FUNINDES is a very adequate case to be approached for a Case Study in the integration of both academic activities and among disciplines.

Abstract
In recent years, many concerns have be raised regarding the value of business school education. Among the most notable:

       •   Inability to combat ethical lapses in our students and alumni
       •   Questions about the relationship between business education and career success
       •   Lack of expected skills from our graduates
       •   Declines in the return on investment of a business school education
       •   Apparent failure of our research to diffuse to practice
       •   Inability of our research findings to replicate

Many of the issues raised have more validity than many of us involved in business education care to acknowledge. Indeed, it sometimes seems as if our many of our educational and research activities are being conducted entirely without regard to their impact on the very employers who ultimately foot the bill for our institution by employing our students (and the parents/taxpayers who provide our revenue).

Over the past three years, the College of Business at the University of South Florida (USF COB) has launched a series of initiatives to enhance its impact. Five are to be considered in the plenary session:

1. Practice Centers: A program in which students, under the direction of a faculty advisor, are hired by local companies to complete a specific project over the course of a semester.
2. Adoption of inter-disciplinary areas of focus: In order to provide a sense of focus to its research activities, USF has adopted Business Analytics and Creativity/Innovation as two areas of emphasis. Of particular note, major efforts have been made to ensure broad involvement in these initiatives across all business functions.
3. Cybersecurity Initiative: The USF COB has taken the leadership role in a partnership with three other colleges (Engineering, Community and Behavioral Sciences, and the School of Information) to develop a cybersecurity master’s program and a center for cybersecurity.
4. Case development initiative: Whereas the development and use of case studies in the classroom has traditionally not been viewed as a research activity, the USF COB has begun to actively support and encourage these activities.
5. Professional Doctorate: Starting in July 2014, the USF COB will begin offering a research focused doctorate aimed at working executives.

After summarizing the specific programs, they are analyzed with respect to their observed and potential roles in:

       •   Building bridges between research and practice
       •   Breaking down silos between functional areas within the college and across colleges within the broader institution
       •   Creating informing flows that link practice, researcher and students in a manner that maximizes impact.

As part of the analysis, the argument is presented that when dealing with real world phenomena, such approaches are a prerequisite to effective informing and the Holy Grail of impactful research."

Abstract
Educators must find ways to prepare students for the challenges they will face in both their professional and their personal lives as citizens in the 21^st century.  Instruction that incorporates both interdisciplinary and intercultural perspectives can help students develop as global citizens and can enhance their civic engagement both locally and globally.  This presentation will demonstrate how faculty members can create assignments and courses that will develop students’ global competencies and, thereby, enhance their civic engagement.

Abstract
Teaching and learning have been studied for more than 2500 years. In the modern era, three major theories have evolved: Behavioral, Cognitive and Constructive. Each of these theories is used at least in part by all educators. The following presentation considers the uses and benefits of each of these approaches, comparing each with Edgar Dale’s Cone of Learning as a metaphor and guide to their optimal use in the classroom.

Abstract
Over the past 100 years, higher education in the U.S. has transformed itself. Once principally focused on teaching (and the related application of scholarship to teaching), in today’s world nearly all prestige and rewards accrue to activities referred to as “research”. While this research focus has led to some impressive discoveries, it has also led to a system where considerable effort is expended upon publication with little or no concern for any consequent practical impact. In applied disciplines, such as business, education, engineering and even medicine, this has produced twin concerns:

• That most of our research activity produces findings unlikely to have any impact, and that justifying the large flow of resources required to continue this activity is therefore becoming increasingly difficult.
• That even where our research findings  might be of value to practice, we have been unable to communicate that fact—whether by virtue of resistance or, more often, by lack of incentives to put forth the considerable effort required—making the “value” of these findings moot.

The purpose of this panel is to provide a forum for participants to discuss how we might rethink how we conduct our research in order to increase its impact. During the first hour, first the panelists then the participants will identify institutional and disciplinary obstacles to changing the way we think about research. Examples of such obstacles might include:

• Editorial policies of journals
• Metrics used to evaluate faculty research productivity and research quality
• Levels of prestige (or lack thereof) associated with different types of research
• Habits instilled by doctoral education and subsequent “socialization” of faculty (referred to as “trained incapacity” by early 20^th century economist Thorstein Veblen)
• Misapplication of rules for rigor from one research domain to materially different domains
• And so forth…

Our plan is to compile a list of concrete, practical examples of such obstacles. Then, in the second hour, our goal is to follow the same structure in eliciting ideas—actual or potential remedies to these obstacles—from panelists and participants. Hopefully, these ideas will include concrete examples of both:

• Activities or policies attempted by universities to increase research impact
• Possible approaches that have yet to be adopted

The session will be highly interactive, with panelists speaking briefly, off the cuff, without formal presentations. Also, as an experiment, we left room on the panel so that if a conference attendee should feel that he or she has particularly useful insights or experiences, he or she can be added to the panel. If you feel you fall into that category, you are encouraged to speak to Dr. Nagib Callaos or Dr. Grandon Gill prior to the scheduled start time for the panel.

Abstract
Over the past 100 years, higher education in the U.S. has transformed itself. Once principally focused on teaching (and the related application of scholarship to teaching), in today’s world nearly all prestige and rewards accrue to activities referred to as “research”. While this research focus has led to some impressive discoveries, it has also led to a system where considerable effort is expended upon publication with little or no concern for any consequent practical impact. In applied disciplines, such as business, education, engineering and even medicine, this has produced twin concerns:

• That most of our research activity produces findings unlikely to have any impact, and that justifying the large flow of resources required to continue this activity is therefore becoming increasingly difficult.
• That even where our research findings  might be of value to practice, we have been unable to communicate that fact—whether by virtue of resistance or, more often, by lack of incentives to put forth the considerable effort required—making the “value” of these findings moot.

The purpose of this panel is to provide a forum for participants to discuss how we might rethink how we conduct our research in order to increase its impact. During the first hour, first the panelists then the participants will identify institutional and disciplinary obstacles to changing the way we think about research. Examples of such obstacles might include:

• Editorial policies of journals
• Metrics used to evaluate faculty research productivity and research quality
• Levels of prestige (or lack thereof) associated with different types of research
• Habits instilled by doctoral education and subsequent “socialization” of faculty (referred to as “trained incapacity” by early 20^th century economist Thorstein Veblen)
• Misapplication of rules for rigor from one research domain to materially different domains
• And so forth…

Our plan is to compile a list of concrete, practical examples of such obstacles. Then, in the second hour, our goal is to follow the same structure in eliciting ideas—actual or potential remedies to these obstacles—from panelists and participants. Hopefully, these ideas will include concrete examples of both:

• Activities or policies attempted by universities to increase research impact
• Possible approaches that have yet to be adopted

The session will be highly interactive, with panelists speaking briefly, off the cuff, without formal presentations. Also, as an experiment, we left room on the panel so that if a conference attendee should feel that he or she has particularly useful insights or experiences, he or she can be added to the panel. If you feel you fall into that category, you are encouraged to speak to Dr. Nagib Callaos or Dr. Grandon Gill prior to the scheduled start time for the panel.

Abstract
The talks gives a broad overview of the historical development of multi-objective decision making from early origins and its establishment as a distinct research field in the 1970s up to a mature discipline which we find today. This development led to a large number of different approaches which reflect the multidisciplinary nature of this science. Methodological contributions come from diverse fields such as mathematics, economics, engineering, psychology and other disciplines. Moreover, we put particular emphasis on practical applications of respective techniques in that field. We discuss an application scenario which is based on the roles of a decision analyst (= expert for multi-objective approaches) and a decision maker (= expert for the application domain). The presentation concludes with an outlook on possible future research directions.

Abstract
Inter-disciplinary Inquiry-Based Science Experiences that have Science Technology Engineering andMathematics (STEM) in the undergraduate learning experiences are the learning experiences neededfor the 21st century. The laboratory research experiences for my undergraduate science educationstudents working on development of sensors to analysis of field samples changes a typical traditionalclassroom into a highly interactive learning environment. The inquiry-based labs are required toengage students into problem solving with the process of critical thinking skills. These problembasedskills enable students to generate, evaluate and share their research findings for their sensorsdeveloped. The students are required to design the sensor to analyze a sample collected on a fieldtrip. The sensor(s) developed to the samples collected on a field trip are analyzed by technology suchas cyclic voltammetry (CV) , differential pulse voltammetry (DPV), square-wave anodic strippingvoltammetry (SWASV), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Fourier Transform InfraredSpectroscopy (FTIR), X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Raman Spectroscopy [1-3]. The pre-and posttestassessments will be shared to illustrate the successes of the guided inquiry lab results.

Abstract
With ever increasing amounts of data, organizations are identifying the importance of Business Intelligence (BI) and Analytics for decision making. A McKinsey Global Institute report identified requirements for 1.5 million additional analytic staff, with a shortfall due to knowledge gaps within the current workforce. In order to meet this demand, a Center for Business Intelligence and Analytics (CBIA) for joint academic and industry collaboration seeks to develop knowledge and skills vital in the fast changing field of business, through developing the next generation of managers and analysts with skills in decision-making through use of analytical techniques.

Abstract
Is physics of the mind possible? How would it differ from biophysics or neural networks?
 
Physics looks for the first principles describing a wide area of reality. Physics develops testable predictive theories. Experimental physics tests predictions and measures events revealing fundamentals of the nature. At the workshop we discuss steps towards a physical theory of the mind. First we discuss known first principles of the mind. These include mechanisms of concepts, emotions, the knowledge instinct, the mind hierarchy, and dynamic logic. This dynamic process-logic replaces classical logic operating with static statements. Dynamic logic serves as a basis for a mathematical theory of learning, combining the listed first principles into a hierarchical system of mental processes. Each process in the mind-brain proceeds "from vague to crisp," from vague representation-concepts to crisp ones. We conduct a 1-min experiment demonstrating that our minds operate with dynamic logic. Then we discuss brain imaging experiments (Bar et al 2006; Kveraga et al 2007) confirming this in greater details as an adequate model of the brain perception and cognition.
 
Dynamic logic, the mathematical basis of the physical theory of the mind, overcame the difficulty of computational complexity plaguing modeling of the mind, artificial intelligence, and machine learning since the 1960s.

We discuss how this difficulty relates to Gödelian problems in logic: computational complexity is a manifestation of Gödelian incompleteness in finite systems, such as computers or brains. The mind is "not logical." The Aristotle's theory of mind is closer to dynamic logic than to classical logic. Engineering applications demonstrate orders of magnitude improvement in classical problems of pattern recognition, data mining, information integration, financial predictions.

We discuss the dual hierarchy model of interactions between language and cognition. A number of "mysteries" involved in this interaction (what is the difference between language and cognition; what is the role of language in cognition, why children can talk before they really understand, how much adults are different from children in this respect, etc.). These are explained in the model, and explanations are confirmed in brain imaging experiments (Binder et al 2005; Price 2012).
 
The knowledge instinct drives acquisition of cognitive ability and is a foundation of all our higher cognitive abilities. Its satisfaction is experienced as aesthetic emotions (experimentally confirmed in Cabanac et al 2010). The hierarchy of aesthetic emotions is discussed from understanding of everyday objects to understanding of representation-concepts near the top of the mental hierarchy. I discuss contents of these "highest" concepts and relate the corresponding aesthetic emotions to the beautiful. Experimental tests of this conjecture are for the near future.
 
Contradictions among knowledge are experienced as negative aesthetic emotions, cognitive dissonances. This mechanism counteracts the knowledge instinct and would prevent accumulation of knowledge and the entire human evolution, if not a special ability evolved for overcoming these emotions. It follows from the dual hierarchy model that this ability is music. This theoretical prediction has been experimentally confirmed (Masataka et al 2012, 2013). We explain the origin and evolution of music, what Darwin called the greatest mystery. 
 

Abstract
Is physics of the mind possible? How would it differ from biophysics or neural networks?
 
Physics looks for the first principles describing a wide area of reality. Physics develops testable predictive theories. Experimental physics tests predictions and measures events revealing fundamentals of the nature. At the workshop we discuss steps towards a physical theory of the mind. First we discuss known first principles of the mind. These include mechanisms of concepts, emotions, the knowledge instinct, the mind hierarchy, and dynamic logic. This dynamic process-logic replaces classical logic operating with static statements. Dynamic logic serves as a basis for a mathematical theory of learning, combining the listed first principles into a hierarchical system of mental processes. Each process in the mind-brain proceeds "from vague to crisp," from vague representation-concepts to crisp ones. We conduct a 1-min experiment demonstrating that our minds operate with dynamic logic. Then we discuss brain imaging experiments (Bar et al 2006; Kveraga et al 2007) confirming this in greater details as an adequate model of the brain perception and cognition.
 
Dynamic logic, the mathematical basis of the physical theory of the mind, overcame the difficulty of computational complexity plaguing modeling of the mind, artificial intelligence, and machine learning since the 1960s.

We discuss how this difficulty relates to Gödelian problems in logic: computational complexity is a manifestation of Gödelian incompleteness in finite systems, such as computers or brains. The mind is "not logical." The Aristotle's theory of mind is closer to dynamic logic than to classical logic. Engineering applications demonstrate orders of magnitude improvement in classical problems of pattern recognition, data mining, information integration, financial predictions.

We discuss the dual hierarchy model of interactions between language and cognition. A number of "mysteries" involved in this interaction (what is the difference between language and cognition; what is the role of language in cognition, why children can talk before they really understand, how much adults are different from children in this respect, etc.). These are explained in the model, and explanations are confirmed in brain imaging experiments (Binder et al 2005; Price 2012).
 
The knowledge instinct drives acquisition of cognitive ability and is a foundation of all our higher cognitive abilities. Its satisfaction is experienced as aesthetic emotions (experimentally confirmed in Cabanac et al 2010). The hierarchy of aesthetic emotions is discussed from understanding of everyday objects to understanding of representation-concepts near the top of the mental hierarchy. I discuss contents of these "highest" concepts and relate the corresponding aesthetic emotions to the beautiful. Experimental tests of this conjecture are for the near future.
 
Contradictions among knowledge are experienced as negative aesthetic emotions, cognitive dissonances. This mechanism counteracts the knowledge instinct and would prevent accumulation of knowledge and the entire human evolution, if not a special ability evolved for overcoming these emotions. It follows from the dual hierarchy model that this ability is music. This theoretical prediction has been experimentally confirmed (Masataka et al 2012, 2013). We explain the origin and evolution of music, what Darwin called the greatest mystery.