Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung Center for Interdisciplinary Research Universität Bielefeld

Transkript

1 Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung Center for Interdisciplinary Research Universität Bielefeld 2 ZiF-Gremien Authorities 3 Editorial 4 ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Communicating Disaster Abschlussbericht 11 ZiF-Forschungsgruppe The Message of Quantum Science Attempts Towards a Synthesis 13 ZiF-Forschungsgruppe The Cultural Constitution of Causal Cognition 17 ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Stochastic Dynamics: Mathematical Theory and Applications mind & brain: new perspectives from task-driven vision 21 Z if-forschungsgruppe The Cultural Constitution of Causal Cognition Kausalkognition und ihre vielen Facetten II 26 ZiF-Interview mit Philippe Blanchard und Jürg Fröhlich 32 Rückblick Review 69 ZiF-Nachwuchsnetzwerk ZiF Network of Young Scholars 71 Kunst am ZiF ZiF Art Beate Köhne: Rohnatur 72 Notizen Notes 77 Neue Veröffentlichungen aus Projekten des ZiF ZiF New Publications 78 ZiF-Kalendarium September bis Dezember 2012 Upcoming Events September to December 2012 Mitteilu nge n 19 ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Competition and priority control in

2 2 ZiF-Gremien Authorities Der Wissenschaftliche Beirat Advisory Council Prof. Dr. Hinnerk Bruhns (Geschichtswissenschaft, EHESS/CNRS, Paris, FRA) Prof. Dr. Lorraine Daston (Wissenschaftsgeschichte, MPI für Wissenschafts geschichte, Berlin, DEU) Prof. Dr. Herbert Dawid (Wirtschaftswissenschaft, U Bielefeld, DEU) Prof. Dr. Walter Erhart (Literaturwissenschaft, U Bielefeld, DEU) Prof. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer (Psychologie, MPI für Bildungsforschung, Berlin, DEU) Prof. Dr. Christopher Habel (Informatik, U Hamburg, DEU) Prof. Dr. Jürgen Jost (Mathematik, MPI für Mathematik in den Natur wissenschaften, Leipzig, DEU) Prof. Dr. Thomas Noll (Biotechnologie, U Bielefeld, DEU) Prof. Dr. Ilona Ostner (Soziologie, U Göttingen, DEU) Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Prinz (Psychologie, MPI für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften, Leipzig, DEU) Prof. Dr. Günter Reiss (Physik, U Bielefeld, DEU) Prof. Dr. Helge Ritter (Informatik, U Bielefeld, DEU) Prof. Dr. Ekhard Salje (Geowissenschaften, U Cambridge, GBR) Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. mult. Reinhard Selten (Volkswirtschaft, U Bonn, DEU) Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Spohn (Philosophie, U Konstanz, DEU) Prof. Dr. Peter Weingart (Soziologie, U Bielefeld, DEU) Geschäftsführende Direktorin Managing Director Prof. Dr. Ulrike Davy Das ZiF fördert als Institute for Advanced Study der Universität Bielefeld heraus ragende interdisziplinäre und innovative Forschungsprojekte. Das ZiF ist eine un abhängige, thematisch ungebundene Forschungseinrichtung und steht Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern aller Länder und aller Disziplinen offen. Nähere Informationen unter: The ZiF is Bielefeld University s Institute for Advanced Study and fosters outstanding and innovative interdisci plinary research projects. The ZiF is an independent thematically open research institution and is open to scholars from all disciplines and all countries. Detailed informa tion can be found at: Das Wissenschaftliche Direktorium Board of Directors Prof. Dr. Ulrike Davy, Fakultät für Rechtswissenschaft (geschäftsführende Direktorin) Prof. Dr. Philippe Blanchard, Fakultät für Physik (stellv. geschäftsführender Direktor) Prof. Dr. Martin Egelhaaf, Fakultät für Biologie (Prorektor der U Bielefeld) Prof. Dr. Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka, Fakultät für Soziologie Prof. Dr. Michael Röckner, Fakultät für Mathematik Dr. Britta Padberg (Vertreterin der wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter) Dipl.-Soz. Mary Kastner M. A. (Vertreterin der weiteren Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter) Geschäftsführerin Executive Secretary Dr. Britta Padberg Wissenschaftlichen Referentin des Direktoriums Scientific Assistant to the Board of Directors Dipl.-Soz. Barbara Jantzen Ulrike Davy Philippe Blanchard Martin Egelhaaf Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka Michael Röckner

3 Editorial Editorial 3»I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.«(richard Feynman, Nobelpreis für Physik 1965) Von Februar bis Mai hat sich auf Einladung des Direktoriums eine Gruppe von Physikern und Mathematikern im ZiF versammelt, die daran arbeitete, das Verständnis der Quantenmechanik zu erweitern. Dass es durchaus möglich ist, Quantenphysiker zu verstehen, beweist jedenfalls das Interview mit den beiden Initiatoren der Gruppe Jürg Fröhlich (ETH Zürich) und Philippe Blanchard (Universität Bielefeld) auf Seite 26. Das ebenfalls Richard Feynman in den Mund gelegte Zitat»Shut up and calculate«ist mitnichten das Motto der Gruppe Stochastic Dynamics and its Applications, die den Sommer über das ZiF bevölkert. Parallel zur Jahresgruppe Cultural Constitution of Causal Cognition und im Austausch mit dieser wurde in dieser Zeit aufs Lebhafteste diskutiert und gerechnet. Nach diesen ungewöhnlich betriebsamen Sommermonaten erwarten wir nun die neue Forschungsgruppe Competion and priority control in mind & brain: new perspective from taskdriven vision, die ab Oktober im ZiF der Frage nachgehen wird, wie es dem Gehirn gelingt, den roten Faden nicht zu verlieren. Als praktisches Studienobjekt für kausale Modelle steht den Gruppen übrigens zu unserer großen Freude seit einiger Zeit ein Billardtisch in unserer Bibliothek zur Verfügung. Herzlichen Dank an den Verein der Freunde und Förderer für diese großzügige Spende! Zu guter Letzt noch ein wichtiger Hinweis: Die ZiF-Mitteilungen gibt es nun auch online ( Sollten Sie zukünftig nicht mehr die gedruckte Version beziehen wollen, geben Sie uns bitte kurz Bescheid. Wir benachrichtigen Sie gern per Mail mit einem entsprechenden Link über das Erscheinen jeder neuen Online-Ausgabe. Wenn Sie diesen Informationsservice in Anspruch nehmen möchten, abonnieren Sie die Info-Mail: p abonnement.html Eine interessante Lektüre wünscht Britta Padberg I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. (Richard Feynman, Noble Prize in Physics 1965) At the invitation by the Board of Directors, a group of physicists and mathematicians came together at the ZiF from February to May this year and worked at broadening the understanding of quantum mechanics. It is entirely possible to understand quantum physicists, however the interview with the two convenors of the group, Jürg Fröhlich (ETH Zurich) and Philippe Blanchard (Bielefeld University) proves that point (see page 26). The quotation shut up and calculate also attributed to Richard Feynman is by no means the maxim of the Research Group Stochastic Dynamics: Mathematical Theory and Applications active at the ZiF during this summer. Parallel to the current one-year group Cultural Constitution of Causal Cognition and in close dialogue with its participants there has been a lively exchange during that time but calculating has been done, too. Following these exceptionally busy summer months we are now looking forward to the new ZiF Research Group Competition and Priority Control in Mind and Brain: New Perspectives from Task-driven Vision. From October, this group is going to explore the question as to how the brain manages to work task-oriented and avoid losing a continuous thread. Now we are very happy to support the work of the groups by providing a practical study subject for causal methods: a billiard table has recently been placed in our library. Special thanks go to the Circle of Friends and Donors for their generous financial aid. Finally an important notice: The ZiF-Mitteilungen are now available online, too ( If you don t want to get the printed version in future, please let us know. We may then inform you by mail as soon as the latest online ZiF-Mitteilungen have appeared. To register for this service please use the button ZiF-Mitteilungen online on our homepage: p abonnement.html. I hope this issue makes interesting reading. Britta Padberg

4 4 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPE RESEARCH group Communicating Disaster Leitung: Jörg Bergmann (Bielefeld, DEU), Heike Egner (Klagenfurt, AUT) und Volker Wulf (Siegen, DEU) 1. November Juli 2011 Communicating Disaster Six maxims for a new take on disaster research Final report Disasters, with their looming character of utter destruction, have always played a significant role for societies, even in times of relative peacefulness. With the increasing importance of the media, disasters however seem to have gained omnipresence over the past decades. We do not only obtain constant information on (potential) disasters that may have concrete consequences for us, but are continuously updated on catastrophes from the remotest corners of the world. The amount of information, pictures, or video snippets directly taken from a disaster site increases dramatically, and one extreme event seems to make way for the next, striving to gain our attention. The way we perceive and relate to such disasters has thus most probably changed, as have the possibilities and ways of dealing with disasters modified by these altered informational and communicative dynamics. More than ever, the disasters of others seem to have become our business be it as onlookers, as helpers or as scholars. The closing conference of the research group Communicating Disaster (26-28 January, 2012) thus bore the heading: Dealing with the Disasters of Others. It was the final of a number of activities by the group. This report summarizes some general results of a year full of discussions and insights. Framing a communication-based program for disaster research: six maxims The research group was organized by Prof. Dr. Jörg Bergmann (Sociology, Bielefeld University), Prof. Dr. Heike Egner (Geography, University of Klagenfurt) and Prof. Dr. Volker Wulf (Informatics, Siegen University), and coordinated by Dr. Sarah Hitzler and Marén Schorch (both Sociology, Bielefeld University). It provided a research setting for 29 renowned international researchers of the social, natural and information sciences as well as the humanities who spent working periods between a couple of weeks and several months at the ZiF. The group had set out in November 2010 to challenge classical perspectives of disaster research and establish a novel, communication-based approach. This approach can be sketched out under six maxims, which serve to frame an alternative research program for disaster research: 1. Disaster research needs to be analytically independent of disaster management 2. Disaster research needs to take seriously the social character of disasters 3. Disaster research needs to include research into communicative processes 4. Disaster research needs theoretical disengagement and grounding 5. Disaster research needs to appreciate single cases haecceitas 6. Disaster research needs a flexible notion of disaster

5 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 5 These maxims will be outlined and elaborated in the following. Disaster research needs to be analytically independent of disaster management Traditionally, disaster research focuses on the planning, management and mitigation processes of a disaster, relying mainly on quantitative methods for analyses. A critical implication of this is that the researcher is usually too close to the rationalities and necessities of these practical fields and therefore unable to keep the distant view necessary for analysing the social dynamics of disastrous events. But scientific concepts of disaster are always second-order concepts (Alfred Schütz 1971), relying on the first-order concepts of disaster that will be found in the views and everyday activities of people, groups or organizations. In order to develop an analytic and scientific understanding of the social unfolding of disasters it is crucial to get access to these activities in and through which events become disasters. Disaster research needs to take seriously the social character of disasters Hartman and Squires (2006) observe that, no matter what causes an extreme event to happen, there is no such thing as a natural disaster. A natural event is never a disaster by itself, since any natural event needs the involvement of humans or their living spaces in order to be perceived as disastrous: it is thus by its effects on people through material damage and casualties that an extreme event becomes a disaster. Even these effects, however, are no hard determinants, but result from culturally shaped processes of interpretation and communication through which the disastrousness of the event is determined. Disaster research that does not take seriously the social constructions superimposed on whatever happened and instead aims exclusively to objectify the event by scales and numbers will overlook a very important aspect of the nature of any disastrous situation. Disaster research needs to include research of communicative processes The social character of disasters implies a hitherto unacknowledged importance of the communicative processes that complement them. A vast array of communicative activities precede, accompany and follow a disastrous event, and their analysis will not only provide insight into the course a disaster takes, but just as much into what makes it a disaster. The idea of communication, of course, is no stranger to disaster research. It is, however, predominately conceptualized as an imperative, as the right way of determining and passing on information to the appropriate addressees. Such an understanding falls far short of the complex achievement of even simplest acts of communication. Communication ought to be understood and analyzed as a context-dependent as well as context-shaping, autopoietic social instrument which, rather than merely reproducing fixed meaning, produces and adapts content over time. Thereby, it has immediate effects on a social situation: in communicating about a disaster, people actually produce it as the specific disaster they mutually experience.

6 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 6 Disaster research needs theoretical disengagement and grounding In order to analyze the social and communicative processes involved in the construction of disasters, a distant point of view is necessary. Rather than relying on first-order observations (meaning simultaneous distinctions and denominations of things) which remain within the system of the disaster, second-order observations (understood as simultaneous distinctions and denominations of observations) based on systems theory allow to step out of the immediate complexities of the field, forming a reflexive perspective on how the first-order distinctions came about. Adopting observation theory to disaster communication and disaster research allows a deeper insight into the social practices related to disasters as well as the subtleties of the social construction of disasters. Combining this approach with an understanding of communication as a process of situated mutual and ongoing production such as held by ethnomethodology, provides a range of new insights into the nature of communication processes in disaster contexts, shedding light on who defines what, when, how, in which context and with what consequences in disaster related communication. Disaster research needs to appreciate single cases haecceitas Taking seriously the communicative processes of extreme events demands for a research methodology that is able to capture the particulars through and with which they construct disastrousness. Qualitative approaches, in contrast to the quantitative practices traditionally embraced in disaster research, take seriously the uniqueness, the haecceitas (Harold Garfinkel 1967), of any social situation. They rely upon the lived-in-a-world terms as a basis: the firstorder observations of those who experience, witness, report, cope, engage themselves or in any other way deal with a disaster. Not taking as a starting point so-called objective facts such as the magnitude of an earthquake or a figure denoting the material damage sustained, qualitative methods can engage with the necessarily messy and manifold details of what a disastrous situation means to those caught in it, and what they do to reinstate sense and rationality of actions. Disaster research needs a flexible notion of disaster Rejecting objectifying points of reference as a starting point entails a challenge with regard to the very subject matter: It renders it nearly impossible to formulate a stable definition of what a disaster is. The prevailing positivistic notion with its emphasis on definitions based on standardized aspects such as the amount of damage, number of victims or other countable items can be contested by the critique that standardization à tout prix reduces the complexity of a disaster to a great extent. At the same time, it cannot be dismissed that standardizations and clear underlying definitions can serve as a stable tertium comparationis which make possible comparative research as well as being indispensable for a number of practical fields connected to disasters, such as insurance companies, disaster management institutions or relief organizations. A way out is offered by supplementing existing positivistic definitions with a definition embracing a relativistic perspective. Such a definition is necessarily more flexible and less clear-cut, while creating a link to the life world of the people affected and hereby allowing contextualized research that includes the everyday-life understanding of a disaster. The supplementary working definition developed by the research group read: A disaster is a breakdown of established social order and the ordinarily expected coping strategies within a community or society. Obviously, this approach entails the challenge of contextualized terminology: The definitions and understandings will differ in regard to local understanding and interpretation and this poses obvious restrictions on comparative research. Resorting to a qualitative research

7 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups perspective thus brings about a reduction of the scope of its analytical results, but will permit better and more precise understanding of the idiosyncrasies, inherent dynamics and situatedness of a disaster and of those affected by it. Working on communicating disaster : reference to time and space The maxims sketched out above framed and opened up the research topic for the research group. Analytically, they were accompanied by two forms of heuristic: a temporal and a spatial dimension. According to Kant, time and space are a priori notions to the very possibility of comprehending sensory perceptions. Both are ways of rationally organizing the course of chaotic events, thus of imposing distinctions in order to make sense both on the first level of observation, i.e. the perspective of those affected, and the second level of observation, i.e. the perspective of academic analysis. 7 Time The temporal dimension is regularly relied upon in the discussion of disasters. The unfolding of a disaster is often captured in the imagery of the disaster life cycle applied in most emergency management strategies, which identifies six central functions for management activities: preparation, response, recovery, mitigation, reduction and prevention. Trying to adapt this cycle to the communicative processes in disastrous situations, however, proved to be too inflexible an approach. While the temporal dimension of before, during and after can be identified for every disastrous event, despite their diversity in cultural setting, type, length and degrees of the events, communications will often find their own way of structuring what is going on. The media, for instance, aim to present up-to-date, new news even in situations in which no new information is available, and resort to reorganizing existing information. Social media may speed up reactivity to specific situations of distress, but may also ventilate obsolete information, producing false alarms. Time thus needs to be understood as a way that actors use to structure and make sense of the unfolding events in situ as much as in retrospective processes of interpretation and understanding. Space The concept of space has recently found its way into debates on disasters in its second-order appearance in the form of spatialization. The social understanding and manipulation of space is highly consequential for the understanding of disasters and disaster-related activity: Space and spatial or space-related semantics, just as risks, can be conceived as media of communication that fulfil the function of contributing to social structuring and order formation (Egner & Pott 2010: 231). This is tied to the fact that extreme events leading to a disaster always happen somewhere; they literally take place. The place that a disaster takes is never just a single co-ordinate on a map. Localizing a disastrous event will necessarily create new social spaces; a distinction is drawn between a space for those who are affected by an event and a space for those who are not. This is as true for risk assessment, for instance in the design of risk maps, which declare some areas safe and others out of bounds, and while both may be only minimally different, the consequences will be substantial. Spatialization also is a contingent element of the organization of social spaces via geo-semiotics such as signs bearing pictograms or written information. Such pre-structuring gains the impact of facts that need to be stable and reliable in cases of crises.

8 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 8 Finding new topics for disaster research Adopting the perspective of a communication-oriented, theoretically grounded and inductive research program gave rise to a number of topics which are not yet well established within traditional disaster research, and provided the chance to shed new light onto other, more conventional themes. In a range of different research events, the group held lively and occasionally fierce debates: The role of cultural and historical relativity in the definition of what a disaster is was addressed, using empirical case studies of historical and cultural aspects of various disaster events. Disaster communication was investigated from a micro perspective with the aim to reveal intrinsic patterns of e.g. alarm communication or to analyze how media correspondents structure their reports on disasters. Since it is nearly impossible to observe disasters in their actual unfolding as a researcher, the role and explanatory power of simulation was debated regularly. Technical simulations such as CERN s particle physics simulation and social simulations such as disaster scenarios for disaster management or operative teams were analyzed, members of the research group took part in LÜKEX 2011, a nationwide disaster set-up at the administrative level simulating an attack on crucial IT systems, and additionally the research group hosted an ethnological art project on emergency provisions which worked with psycho-diagnostic tools (group Xperiment!). Research in the context of CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) and current developments of web-based technology and content, particularly the social media, were intensely discussed with regard to their impact and potential for information management and communication of a wide range of actors in disasters. From a more technical perspective, several researchers pointed out that an awareness of the communicative peculiarities of disaster situations is a crucial prerequisite for the adequate design of tools and spaces. The increasing role of technology for disaster management at the same time makes relevant the implications of its breakdown in critical situations. Finally, a topic relevant to several discussions concerned the role of media in the definition and shaping of disasters. Media take on a special position in disasters as they literally serve as mediators, seemingly bridging the distance between those affected and those not affected by the event. This dependency accords control to the media, which are in the position to direct their users attention and, to some degree, level of involvement and engagement. Time and again, we were confronted in our discussions that our take on the subject matter was necessarily paradoxical. While the general everyday perception seems to be that disasters are on the increase, for most of us disasters are not based on first-hand experience but on secondhand information: Disasters really are mostly the disasters of others. The media, media recipients, disaster management, politics, and not least researchers are confronted with a paradox form of involvement: Doing something with the disaster while not really being affected by it. This paradox needs to be reflected, addressing the question how this positioning of non-affected media, recipients, relief organizations, researchers etc. affects the perspective on the involvement. Such reflexivity seems to be important specifically for research on disasters in order to avoid the traps of either adopting in a naïve humanistic mode the viewpoint of the disaster victims or adopting in a technological mode the viewpoint of political actors and disaster management organizations. As researchers we can always resort to a distanced and generalizing point of view, but the danger is not only to disregard the uniqueness of every single disaster but also to lose sight of

9 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups the victims. While the research group has only begun to sketch out a perspective for a field of mainly qualitative disaster research on communication, this perspective has already led to a number of new questions and tacks, a few tentative answers and a range of new cooperations, bringing together people from diverse disciplines and research areas as well as practitioners who have identified common interests and profited from each others points of view. Most of the work remains to be done in order to further develop the field but the year at the ZiF may have planted a handful of seeds that could bear fruit of which nature cannot yet be foreseen. Sarah Hitzler, Marén Schorch, Heike Egner, Jörg Bergmann, Volker Wulf Anfragen contact zur ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Communicating Disaster wissenschaftlichen Assistentinnen Marén Schorch M. A. und Dr. Sarah Hitzler Tel (0) communicating_disaster@uni-bielefeld.de 9 Das Leitungsteam der ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Communicating Disaster Jörg Bergmann, Heike Egner, Marén Schorch und Volker Wulf (v. l. n. r.) Informationen Further Information zur Forschungsgruppe Communicating Disaster p References Egner, H. & A. Pott (eds.), 2010: Geographische Risikoforschung. Zur Konstruktion verräumlichter Risiken und Sicherheiten. Stuttgart: Steiner. Hartman, C. & G. D. Squires (eds.), 2006: There is no Such Thing as a Natural Disaster Race, Class, and Hurricane Katrina. New York/London: Routledge. Convenors Prof. Dr. Jörg Bergmann (Sociology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Prof. Dr. Heike Egner (Geography, University of Klagenfurt, AUT) Prof. Dr. Volker Wulf (Information Technology, University of Siegen, DEU) Coordination and academic assistance Dr. Sarah Hitzler (Sociology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Marén Schorch, M. A. (Sociology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Fellows Prof. Dr. Ilkka Arminen (Sociology, University of Tampere, FIN) Prof. Dr. Ruth Ayaß (Sociology, University of Klagenfurt, AUT) Prof. Dr. Greg Bankoff (History, University of Hull, GBR) Dr. Michael Bründl (Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos, CHE) Dr. Monika Büscher (Sociology, Lancaster University, GBR)

10 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 10 Prof. Dr. Andrew Collins (Disaster Management, Northumbria University, Newcastle, GBR) Prof. Dr. Wolf Dombrowsky (Disaster Management, Steinbeis University Berlin, DEU) Prof. Dr. Giolo Fele (Sociology, University of Trento, ITA) Dr. Carsten Felgentreff (Geography, University of Osnabrück, DEU) Prof. Dr. Stephan Habscheid (German Studies, University of Siegen, DEU) Dr. Nicolai Hannig (History, University of Gießen, DEU) Prof. Dr. Katharina Inhetveen (Sociology, Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich, DEU) Prof. Dr. Jürgen Jensen (Hydromechanics, University of Siegen, DEU) Prof. Dr. Stefan Kaufmann (Sociology, University of Freiburg, DEU) Prof. Dr. Thomas Ley (Sociology, Thuringian University of Applied Sciences for Public Administration, DEU) Prof. Dr. Martina Merz (Sociology, University of Lucerne, CHE) PD Dr. Andreas Metzner-Szigeth (Sociology, University of Münster, DEU) Dr. Stephen Mosley (History, Leeds Metropolitan University, GBR) Prof. Dr. Dieter Neubert (Development Sociology, University of Bayreuth, DEU) Prof. Dr. Volkmar Pipek (Information Technology, University of Siegen, DEU) Prof. Dr. Andreas Pott (Geography, University of Osnabrück, DEU) Dr. Jörg Potthast (Sociology, Technical University of Berlin, DEU) Prof. Dr. Gebhard Rusch (Media Studies, University of Siegen, DEU) Prof. Dr. Gunnar Stevens (Information Technology, University of Siegen, DEU) Prof. Dr. Stefan Strohschneider (Psychology, University of Jena, DEU) Dr. Martin Voss (Sociology, Free University of Berlin, DEU) Associated members Dr. Oliver Bakewell (Development Sociology, Oxford University, GBR) Dr. Dominik Collet (History, University of Göttingen, DEU) Dr. Heike Greschke (Sociology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Prof. Dr. Ursula Hennigfeld (Romance Studies, University of Freiburg, DEU) Dr. Andrea Kavanaugh (Information Technology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA/USA) Prof. Dr. Peter Ladkin (Information Technology, Bielefeld University, DEU) PD Dr. Christian Meyer (Sociology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Dr. Frank Oberzaucher (Sociology, University of Konstanz, DEU) Dr. Leysia Palen (Information Technology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO/USA) Peter Parkinson (Sociology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Dr. Valentin Rauer (Sociology, University of Frankfurt, DEU) PD Dr. Hendrik Vollmer (Sociology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Helena Zemp, M.A. (Media Studies, University of Zürich, CHE) Art team Xperiment! Dr. Michael Guggenheim (Ethnology, University of London, GBR) Dr. Bernd Kräftner (Medicine, Vienna, AUT) Judith Kröll, Mag. (Sociology, Vienna, AUT) Gerhard Ramsebner (Mag., Philiosophy, Vienna, AUT) Informationen Further Information zur Forschungsgruppe Communicating Disaster p

11 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups The Message of Quantum Science Attempts Towards a Synthesis Leitung: Jürg Fröhlich (Zürich, CHE) und Philippe Blanchard (Bielefeld, DEU) Februar Mai 2012 From the middle of February until the middle of May 2012, the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) of Bielefeld University has been the scene for a scientific program with the title indicated above. Philippe Blanchard and Jürg Fröhlich have served as scientific coordinators. Our interest in organizing this program has been aroused by the following developments. In recent years, there has been major progress in experimentally exploring previously inaccessible realms of the micro-cosmos the quantum world and in experimentally testing fundamental features of (low-energy) quantum mechanics. This progress relies, on one hand, on the newly acquired ability of experimentalists to manipulate quantum systems, atom by atom, using laser technology, magnetic traps, etc. and to configure atoms into artificial crystals, quantum fluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc. On the other hand, it is based on new semi-conductor devices used to realize 2D electron gases exhibiting the fractional quantum Hall effect, 2D and 3D topological insulators, etc. Thanks to progress in experimental techniques, there are many elegant new experiments testing various somewhat weird aspects of and strange effects in quantum mechanics, such as interference of very large molecules in double-slit experiments, proving the impossibility of hidden-variable theories to describe the quantum world (by exhibiting violations of Bell-type inequalities and verifying predictions of the Kochen-Specker theorem), and illustrating curious consequences of entanglement, quantum teleportation, etc. Furthermore, many new applications of quantum-mechanical effects in the field of information science, cryptography and computation have been proposed, some of which have actually been implemented in devices. Another related area that has seen much progress in recent years concerns open quantum systems and quantum transport. All these developments have confronted theorists with numerous challenging problems that have been addressed and, in some instances solved, in recent years. Although quantum mechanics has been with us for more than eighty-five years, they have led to a new surge of interest in the foundations of this theory, which have puzzled physicists ever since its discovery, and in surprising new applications of quantum mechanics that appear to bear strong potential for the future. Yet another direction in Physics that has seen enormous experimental and theoretical progress is the exploration of the early universe, including some of its features suspected to belong to the realm of the quantum. This is the concern of astro-particle physics, which holds enormous promise for the future. The aim of our program was to gather experimentalists and theorists working in some of the areas described above, in order to review the present state of affairs and to identify interesting and important open problems. Our strategy in pursuing this aim has been to organize two workshops, the first one focusing on the first three topics described above, the second one focusing on some theoretical aspects of the first topic (topological insulators) and the fourth one (open systems and quantum transport). The first workshop began just a week after the start of our program and lasted two weeks. The second one took place three weeks before the end of our program and lasted one week (including Saturday morning). While the first workshop gathered some top-nudge experimentalists and a broad spectrum of theorists, the second one was essen- Fellows Helmut Rauch (Wien, AUT) Magdalena Zych (Wien, AUT) Associated Members Jose M. Gracia Bondia (Saragossa, ESP) Gianfausto Dell'Antonio (Triest, ITA) Carlos Benavides Riveros (Saragossa, ESP) David Ruelle (Bures-sur-Yvette, FRA) Baptiste Schubnel (Zürich, CHE) Andreas Winter (Bristol, GBR) Gang Zhou (Zürich, CHE) Jürg Fröhlich (l.) und Philippe Blanchard 11

12 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 12 tially purely theoretical and technically more demanding. Both of them were extraordinarily successful. In between the two workshops, we had a mini-program on general relativity and cosmology (the fifth topic described above) featuring two lecturers; we organized lectures by a visitor from the University of Geneva (originally from the Ukraine) specializing in electronic interferometry (the first topic), a mathematician from ETH Zurich (originating from China) working on, among other things, the mathematics of transport theory and friction, a colleague from Göttingen who is a great expert in the foundations of quantum theory and relativistic quantum field theory, as well as by several other visitors working in one of the areas mentioned above, including some PhD students and young researchers. Participants in our program come from many European countries, the Americas and China, the majority from Germany, France and Italy. Feedback from visitors and participants in our workshops has been uniformly positive. The coordinators received a considerable number of messages from participants praising the program, which has addressed very topical subjects at just the right time. Some of them confirmed that our program has had a positive impact on their research. Apparently, several scientific papers by various participants, including the coordinators, have been completed in the course of this program. Jürg Fröhlich, Philippe Blanchard Die Botschaft der Quantenwissenschaft Versuch einer Synthesis Von Mitte Februar bis Mitte Mai 2012 ist am ZiF die Forschungsgruppe Die Botschaft der Quantenwissenschaft Versuch einer Synthese durchgeführt worden. Diese stand unter der wissenschaftlichen Leitung von Professor Jürg Fröhlich (ETH-Zürich) und Professor Philippe Blanchard (Universität Bielefeld). Das Konzept dieses Programms war, Experimentalphysiker sowie Theoretiker, die sich mit verschiedenen Aspekten der Quantenwissenschaften beschäftigen, in der ruhigen Atmosphäre des ZiFs zusammen zu bringen, mit dem Ziel, wissenschaftlichen Austausch, Diskussion und Zusammenarbeit an einigen der tiefen Probleme in diesem Bereich der Physik zu fördern. Das thematische Spektrum des Programms reicht von Grundlagenproblemen der Quantentheorie über quantenmechanische Vielkörpertheorie, insbesondere die Physik kalter Atomgase, Nichtgleichgewichtsphänomene und Transporttheorie bis zur Quanteninformationswissenschaft. Die Symbiose von Informatik und Quantentheorie birgt ein großes Potential für neue Konzepte und Algorithmen. Die Quantenmechanik ist die grundlegendste und erfolgreichste physikalische Theorie der Gegenwart. Als solche beschränkt sie sich nicht auf ihre ursprünglichen Anwendungsbereiche, sondern ihr Gegenstandsbereich schließt auch makroskopische Systeme ein. Und doch gibt sie uns noch zahlreiche Rätsel und Probleme auf, zu denen sogar Spezialisten kontroverse Standpunkte einnehmen. Einige dieser Probleme sind konzeptueller, andere mehr technischer Natur. Die Quantenmechanik widerspricht unserer Alltagserfahrung und zwingt uns, unser Weltbild nochmals zu überdenken. Wir hoffen, mit unserem Programm zu einem besseren Verständnis der wesentlichen offenen Probleme und zur Entwicklung von Lösungsstrategien beizutragen. Wie die gesamte Grundlagenforschung birgt die Quantenwissenschaft auch ein enormes wirtschaftliches Potential. Eine Reihe von international bekannten Spezialisten in diesem Bereich haben an zwei Workshops teilgenommen. Kollegen mit Forschungsinteressen im Bereich der Quantenwissenschaften haben das ZiF für kürzere oder längere Zeit besucht. Eine Grundidee war auch, junge Forscherinnen und Forscher am Beginn ihrer Karriere mit erfahrenen Kolleginnen und Kollegen zusammen zu bringen.

13 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups Die Themen der zwei großen Konferenzen spiegeln die verschiedenen Interessenschwerpunkte wider, die sich durch das Programm ziehen. Workshop I Quantum Mechanics: From Foundations to Quantum Information, 27. Februar 9. März 2012 (s. S. 43) Workshop II Mathematical Aspects of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Transport Theory, April 2012 (s. S. 45) 13 The Cultural Constitution of Causal Cognition Leitung: Andrea Bender und Sieghard Beller (beide Freiburg i. Br., DEU) 1. Oktober Juli 2012 Does Cognitive Science Need Anthropology? Diagnosing a troubled relationship Anthropology once was a pioneer in the cognitive revolution and a founding member of the cognitive sciences (D Andrade, 1995). Over the years, however, its presence and influence have continuously decreased to the extent that it became the missing discipline (Boden, 2006). This alienation is particularly evident at the annual meetings of the Cognitive Science Society in which anthropology is meanwhile mostly absent. At the same time, however, the role of culture is increasingly recognized as of prime relevance for the sciences of human cognition in at least two different senses: as a source for cognitive diversity and as the context of cognition. Questions of cognitive and/or linguistic universals have been among the most hotly and controversially debated topics in recent years (e.g., Evans & Levinson, 2009; Norenzayan & Heine, 2005; and see Astuti & Bloch, 2010). They are directly related to a central assumption of cognitive science, namely that cognitive processes can be separated from the content processed. This assumption, however, is increasingly contradicted by cross-cultural findings which reveal that content and process may interact in complex ways (e.g., Atran & Medin, 2008; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011). The issue of cognitive diversity cannot be clarified from an armchair perspective, but requires empirical examination, and this must not rely on restricted samples of western university students only, but necessitates cross-cultural and cross-linguistic comparisons (Arnett, 2008; Henrich, Heine & Norenzayan, 2010; Medin, Bennis & Chandler, 2010). Acknowledging and exploring cultural diversity is an inevitable corrective for the sometimes rash generalizations found in cognitive science. Beyond these cultural differences in content and their implications for processing, culture also needs to be considered as shaping the very context in which cognition typically occurs including, as a distinctive sub-type, psychology labs. This renders culture not just an optional interesting or exotic add-on to cognition, but one of its fundamental dimensions (Cole, 1996; Gatewood, 2011; Hutchins, 1995; Shweder, 1991, 2007). In this interaction of culture and cognition, language plays a specific, dual role: as a cognitive capacity/activity and as an essential part of culture. It is thus not by accident that much of the work perceived as being cognitive anthropology is actually done by ethno-linguists. With questions of cultural and linguistic diversity coming to the fore of attention in the cognitive sciences (Barsalou, 2010; Boster, 1999; Gelfand & Diener, 2010), it might seem only natural to call for anthropology s expertise in culture and language, and to advocate its re-integration into the cognitive sciences (e. g., Bender, Hutchins & Medin, 2010; Gentner, 2010). Considering Fellows Bettina Beer (Luzern, CHE) Penelope Brown (Nimwegen, NLD) Thomas Friedrich (Köln, DEU) Don Gardner (Luzern, CHE) John Gatewood (Bethlehem, PA /USA) York Hagmayer (London, GBR) Daniel Hanus (Leipzig, DEU) Olivier Le Guen (Mexiko City, MEX) Hans Markowitsch (Bielefeld, DEU) Hansjörg Neth (Göttingen, DEU) Albert Newen (Bochum, DEU) Annelie Rothe (Freiburg i. Br., DEU) Jana Samland (Göttingen, DEU) Dirk Schlimm (Montreal, CAN) Keith Stenning (Edinburgh, GBR) Christopher Topp (Bochum, DEU) Michael Waldmann (Göttingen, DEU) Markus Werning (Bochum, DEU) Thomas Widlok (Nimwegen, NLD) Heike Wiese (Potsdam, DEU) Associated Members Sibylle Duda (Potsdam, DEU) Joachim Funke (Heidelberg, DEU) Miriam Haidle (Tübingen, DEU) Gregory Kuhnmünch (Freiburg i. Br., DEU) Asifa Majid (Nimwegen, NLD) Douglas Medin (Evanston, IL /USA) Anne Springer (Potsdam, DEU)

14 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 14 the on-going alienation between the two as detrimental to both sides, a range of initiatives has been launched recently to re-calibrate their relationship, including the 2011/12 ZiF research group The cultural constitution of causal cognition that brings together researchers from cognitive anthropology and several other sub-disciplines of the cognitive sciences. Although this call for rapprochement is generally endorsed in official communiqués, many on both sides appear to be reluctant to answer it. Neither anthropology nor other cognitive sciences are homogenous fields, and many scholars fail to see the benefits of renewing this relationship. Some scientists feel overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of scientific production and fast developments in their own discipline, leading to more specialisation and sub-disciplines. Others take issue with developments in neighboring disciplines and have stopped acknowledging each other s perspectives and findings as relevant. This renders rapprochement difficult to accomplish so why bother? There can be no doubt that, for a comprehensive understanding of human cognition, cognitive science needs to adopt a more diversified perspective, and in particular to take cultural diversity into account (Medin et al., 2010). But does cognitive science really need anthropology? What does anthropology have to offer? And how could anthropology, for its part, benefit from renewing this exchange? For the current issue of TopiCS in Cognitive Science (3/2012), Sieghard Beller, Andrea Bender and Douglas Medin raised these questions to initiate a debate on the prospects for improving the relationship between anthropology and the other cognitive sciences. In order to encourage a frank sharing of perspectives, their opening essay is deliberately provocative. Several challenges for a successful rapprochement are identified, encompassing the diverging paths that cognitive science and anthropology have taken in the past, the degree of compatibility between cognitive science and anthropology with regard to methodology and research strategies, the importance of anthropology for cognitive science, and the need for disciplinary diversity. Given this set of challenges, reconciliation seems unlikely to follow on the heels of good intentions alone. A range of scholars were invited to comment on this essay. Commentators come from different disciplinary backgrounds (including anthropology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, and linguistics), and consist of both senior scholars, who are among the leading scientists in their fields, and junior researchers at different stages in their career with a fresh and unbiased perspective on this topic. These included fellows of the ZiF Research Group (marked with two asterisks) as well as participants in its opening conference (marked with one asterisk) that took place in October 2011 (cf. Bender, Beller & Schroven, 2012). Each response provides a uniquely valuable contribution to this debate in its own right and should stand and be read for itself. In the order of print: Richard Shweder: Anthropology s disenchantment with the cognitive revolution John Gatewood**: Cultural models, consensus analysis, and the social organization of knowledge James Boster*: Cognitive anthropology is a cognitive science Clark Barrett, Stephen Stich & Stephen Laurence: Should the study of Homo sapiens be part of cognitive science? Annelie Rothe**: Cognitive anthropologists: Who needs them? Stephen Levinson*: The original sin of cognitive science Harvey Whitehouse & Emma Cohen: Seeking a rapprochement between anthropology and the cognitive sciences: A problem-driven approach Keith Stenning**: To naturalise or not to naturalise? An issue for cognitive science as well as anthropology ** participant in the opening conference ** fellow of the ZiF Research Group

15 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups Shinobu Kitayama: Integrating two epistemological goals: Why shouldn t we give it another chance? Sara Unsworth: Anthropology in the cognitive sciences: The value of diversity Stephanie Fryberg: Cultural psychology as a bridge between cognitive psychology and anthropology Olivier Le Guen**: Cognitive anthropological fieldwork: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on Yucatec Maya culture and cognition Rita Astuti & Maurice Bloch*: Anthropologists as cognitive scientists In conclusion to this debate, the editors present some examples of productive cross-disciplinary collaboration including this research group that evince a forward momentum in the relationship between anthropology and the other cognitive sciences and conclude by reminding the reader of the interdisciplinary mission and the integrative power of the cognitive sciences: The Cognitive Science Society has always provided a platform for a range of different perspectives and has exhibited great integrative power in the past. It appears willing to create space for critical debates. If it is also willing to take seriously the cultural dimension of cognition together with the discipline essential for grasping this dimension we can all profit and prosper (Bender, Beller, & Medin, 2012, p. 465). Anfragen contact zur ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Cognition beantwortet die wissen schaftliche Assistentin Anita Schroven Tel (0) anita.schroven@uni-bielefeld.de 15 Sieghard Beller, Andrea Bender Brauchen Kognitionswissenschaften die Ethnologie? Diagnose einer problematischen Beziehung Die Ethnologie und die anderen Kognitionswissenschaften haben eine problematische Beziehung. Um sie zu verbessern, müssen die Probleme identifiziert und eine konstruktive Debatte ange stoßen werden. An erster Stelle muss allerdings eine ehrliche Bestandsaufnahme der Unterschiede zwischen und der Ressentiments gegenüber den jeweils anderen Fächern stehen. Die hier vorgestellte Debatte in Topics in Cognitive Science beleuchtet kritisch, wo die Fächer kompatibel sind und wo fundamentale Unterschiede in Methoden und Forschungsstrategien bestehen. In der Diskussion zeichnet sich ab, dass Kultur und die Frage nach der Einbettung von kognitiven Prozessen in den weiteren menschlichen und sozialen also kulturellen Kontexten immer mehr Bedeutung erhält. Eine Diversifizierung der Forschungsstrategien und somit Re-Integration der Ethnologie in dieses Unterfangen scheinen daher nicht nur opportun, sondern auch notwendig. Die Herausforderungen sind jedoch groß, sodass eine Annäherung zwischen den Kognitions wissenschaften und der Ethnologie mehr als nur guten Willen erfordert. Informationen Further Information zur Forschungsgruppe The Cultural Constitution of Causal Cognition p Die Forschungsgruppenleiter Sieghard Beller und Andrea Bender

16 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 16 References Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, Astuti, R., & Bloch, M. (2010). Why a theory of human nature cannot be based on the distinction between universality and variability: Lessons from anthropology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2/3), Atran, S., & Medin, D. L. (2008). The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. Boston: MIT Press. Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Editor s introduction: 30th Anniversary perspectives on cognitive science: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, Beller, S., Bender, A., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Should anthropology be part of cognitive science? Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, Bender, A., Beller, S., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Turning tides: Prospects for more diversity in Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, Bender, A., Beller, S., & Schroven, A. (2012). The cultural constitution of causal cognition: Setting the stage for a cross-disciplinary endeavour. ZiF-Mitteilungen, 1/2012, Bender, A., Hutchins, E., & Medin, D. L. (2010). Anthropology in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, Boden, M. A. (2006). Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science (2 vols.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Boster, J. S. (1999). Cultural variation. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. D Andrade, R. G. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. L. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, Gatewood, J. B. (2011). Personal knowledge and collective representations. In D. B. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. C. de Munck, & M. D. Fischer (Eds.), A companion to cognitive anthropology (pp ). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Gelfand, M. J., & Diener, E. (Eds.) (2010). Culture and psychological science [Special section]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, Gentner, D. (2010). Psychology in cognitive science: Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2/3), Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kitayama, S., & Uskul, A. (2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: Current evidence and future directions. Annual Review in Psychology, 62, Medin, D. L., Bennis, W., & Chandler, M. (2010). Culture and the home-field disadvantage. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, Medin, D. L., et al. (2010). Diversity in the social behavioral and economic sciences. White Paper submitted to NSF BSE. Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131, Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shweder, R. A. (2007). An anthropological perspective: The revival of cultural psychology some premonitions and reflections. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp ). New York: Guilford Press.

17 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups Stochastic Dynamics: Mathematical Theory and Applications Leitung: Leonid Bogachev (Leeds, GBR), Benjamin Bolker (Hamilton, CAN), Yuri Kondratiev (Bielefeld, DEU) und Otso Ovaskainen (Helsinki, FIN) 15. Mai 30. September 2012 Stochastic paradigm, recognizing the significance of uncertainty in the behavior of many natural and anthropogenic systems and processes, plays the fundamental role in modern research into complex dynamics of such systems. Specific models and approaches vary across different subject areas (and different research groups), involving sophisticated theory and techniques such as stochastic analysis on configuration spaces, interacting particle systems, individual (agent) based models, scaling limits and multiscale analyses, random perturbation of dynamical systems, stochastic differential equations, random media theory, disordered systems, spectra of random matrices and operators, growth processes... the list goes on and on. As a direct consequence of the ever-increasing specialization, and owing to many significant developments and advances in the constituent disciplines, the science of stochastic complex systems has quickly matured into a complex system of its own. It is now felt by many that there is an urgent need for the fusion of sometimes disparate approaches, in order to gain a deeper and more holistic understanding of the basic underlying principles and to develop unified powerful techniques, thus taking the study of complex stochastic dynamics to a new conceptual level. The new ZiF Research Group (RG@ZiF) on Stochastic Dynamics was conceived, designed and created in order to make significant progress towards these ambitious goals. A particular focus of our RG is on the interaction and collaboration between mathematicians and biologists, especially ecologists, who, it seems, have a reciprocal urge for going beyond borders and working with mathematicians. The organizing team includes two mathematicians (Bogachev and Kondratiev) and two biologists (Bolker and Ovaskainen). The convenors have actually made first contact and met as a team some time ago at an ICMS workshop on Stochastic Population Dynamics and Applications in Spatial Ecology (Edinburgh, June 2009, Since then, our two micro-communities have been building momentum in collaborative research, culminating in the present RG at the ZiF. We are now happy to report that the activities of our RG@ZiF to date have proved to be a great success. Starting from mid-may 2012, we have welcomed some 60 participants, both short- and long-term as well as the delegates to two workshops (in May and June). Our visitors come from many countries around the globe (including Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, Norway, France, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, and of course Germany), and represent many diverse areas in mathematics and its applications as well as in biology, united by the common interest in stochastic dynamics modelling. There has also been a good mix of renowned experts with younger researchers and postdocs, including a number of PhD students. Most of our work is being organized and structured through workshops and seminars, and is also rooted in numerous informal discussions and emerging or continuing collaborations in pairs and small groups. There is a regular RG seminar series running every Wednesday (outside of the workshops, of course), normally hosting one or two talks. We have a tradition to eat lunch together at the ZiF Cafeteria before the seminar, and scientific discussions would often start there and then. It is not unusual to have a popular demand for additional seminars, especially when we have prominent short- or mid-term visitors on the program who bring in fresh ideas and set out challenging open problems. Seminars typically spark discussions, leading to follow- Fellows Gregory Derfel (Negev, ISR) Dimitri Finkelshtein (Kiew, UKR) Tadashisa Funaki (Tokio, JPN) Haralampos Hatzikirou (Braunschweig, DEU) Leonid Koralov (College Park, MD/USA) Jurij Kozicki (Lublin, POL) Peter Kramer (Troy, NY/USA) Eugene Lytvynov (Swansea, GBR) Yuri Makhnovsky (Moskau, RUS) Stanislav Molchanov (Charlotte, NC/USA) Maria João de Oliveira (Lissabon, PRT) Grigori Olshanski (Moskau, RUS) Leonid Pastur (Kharkiv, UKR) Errico Presutti (Rom, ITA) Thonggen Su (Hangzhou, CHN) Eugene Strahov (Jerusalem, ISR) Rui Vilela Mendes (Lissabon, PRT) Yuri Yakubovich (St. Petersburg, RUS) Elena Zhizhina (Moskau, RUS) Associated Members Yuri Bakhtin (Atlanta, GA/USA) Carlo Boldrighini (Rom, ITA) Robert Stephen Cantrell (Coral Gables, FL/USA) Stephen Cornell (Leeds, GBR) Gustav W. Delius (York, GBR) Anna DeMasi (L Aquila, ITA) Steven Evans (Berkeley, CA/USA) Mark Freidlin (College Park, MD/USA) Ostap Hryniv (Durham, GBR) Vassili Kolokoltsov (Coventry, GBR) Tobias Kuna (Reading, GBR) Thomas Kurtz (Madison, WI/USA) Irina Markina (Bergen, NOR) Alessandro Pellegrinotti (Rom, ITA) Robin Snyder (Cleveland, OH/USA) Livio Triolo (Rom, ITA) Alexander Vasiliev (Bergen, NOR) Anatoly Vershik (St. Petersburg, RUS) Alexander Wentzell (New Orleans, LA/USA) 17

18 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 18 up meetings in smaller groups, often continuing into weekends and, since recently, sometimes also over Skype if a team member has left the ZiF and returned back home. These practices keep everybody busy but happy, and naturally foster convergence towards joint work on specific projects. As one inspirational example of the needed kind of being open-minded and interdisciplinary, the name of Alan Turing ( ) came up quite surprisingly during Workshop 2 (see page 47). Turing was a famous British mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst and computer scientist ( whose centenary was being marked in June 2012, and not only was his name mentioned repeatedly during the workshop in connection to Turing s instabilities well known in dynamical systems theory, but some of the ZiF RG fellows, whilst discussing and researching into the problem of statistical estimation of biological abundance via sampling methods, incidentally (or perhaps inevitably) came across his (unpublished) work in statistics where Turing had invented a simple and clever way to estimate the number of species (or, say, words in Shakespeare s vocabulary) from a sample, based on observed repetitions. Anyway, we as organizers are thoroughly enjoying the ongoing activities of our RG@ZiF, and we hope that each and every participant will have a similar feeling. This is a really rewarding experience and a great opportunity for us as well as our fellows, and we look forward to more fun and work. Leonid Bogachev, Yuri Kondratiev Informationen Further Information zur Forschungsgruppe Stochastic Dynamics p Shorttime stays Sergio Albeverio (Bonn, DEU) Minus van Baalen (Paris, FRA) Alexei Daletskii (York, GBR) Tobias Hurth (Atlanta, GA/USA) Gregory Iwanov (Bergen, NOR) Miroslaw Andrzej Lachowicz (Warschau, POL) Grant Lythe (Leeds, GBR) Gian Marco Palamara (Zürich, CHE) Alexander Soshnikov (Davis, CA/USA) Kaspar Stucki (Bern, CHE) Felipe Torres (Bonn, DEU) Wei Yang (Warwick, GBR) Participants from Bielefeld Christoph Berns Viktor Bezborodov Philippe Blanchard Eugen Dyky (Kiew, UKR) Barbara Gentz Friedrich Götze Alexander Grigor yan Dennis Hagedorn Moritz Kaßmann Mykola Lebid Tatjana Pasurek Diana Putan Michael Röckner Anfragen contact zur ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Stochastic Dynamics beantwortet der wissenschaftliche Assistent Dr. Oleksandr Kutovyi kutoviy@math.uni-bielefeld.de Vasili Kolokotsov bei seinem Vortrag über Nonlinear Markov Processes and Interacting Particles

19 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups Competition and priority control in mind & brain: new perspectives from task-driven vision Leitung: Werner Schneider (Bielefeld, DEU) und Wolfgang Einhäuser-Treyer (Marburg, DEU) 1. Oktober Juli 2013 Progress in research on mind and brain in the past has benefited greatly from a conceptual separation into distinct functional domains, such as perception, memory, or action. Recent results, however, stress the importance of an integrative view and thus the necessity for common principles that unify these domains into one view of mind and brain. The ZiF Research Group centers on the working hypothesis that major functional domains share competition and priority control as key features. Over 30 internationally leading scientists, from various disciplines including biology, computer science, linguistics, neuroscience, and psychology could be won as fellows and associate members. A major goal is integrating the scientists expertise in the domains of perception, memory, and action to a joint quest for common trans-domain principles of competition and priority control principles at the level of frameworks, theories, and computational models. These principles will be approached from four perspectives: (a) vision as the vantage point, (b) the task as the most relevant bias for shaping competition and priority control, (c) understanding performance in natural tasks, and (d) priority maps as central linking devices. Importantly, the principles shall not exclusively encompass the aforementioned domains, but also be open to other domains (such as decision-making, motivation), which may rely on competition and priority control as well. If successful, the quest for integrative principles of competition and priority control will not only greatly advance our basic-science understanding of mind and brain, but may also foster the development of applications such as autonomous intelligent systems for operation in realistic scenarios, or the assessment and treatment of neurological patients, in which simultaneous disturbances of selective perception, memory and action are frequent. In order to distribute key ideas and emerging insights of the ZiF Research Group within the respective scientific communities, two international conferences and several workshops are scheduled at the ZiF. The opening conference is set for October 9-11, 2012, entitled Linking selection for visual perception, memory and action. 19 Werner Schneider, Wolfgang Einhäuser-Treyer, Gernot Horstmann Wettbewerb und Prioritätskontrolle in Geist und Gehirn: Neue Perspektiven aus der Forschung zu Aufmerksamkeit und Sehen Die Forschung zu Gehirn und Geist hat in der Vergangenheit stark von einer konzeptionellen Aufteilung in getrennte funktionelle Bereiche, wie zum Beispiel Wahrnehmung, Gedächtnis oder Handlung, profitiert. Neuere Forschungsergebnisse weisen allerdings nachdrücklich auf die zentrale Bedeutung einer integrativen Betrachtung hin und unterstreichen somit die Notwendigkeit gemeinsamer Prinzipien, welche diese Bereiche in einer gemeinsamen Sichtweise von Gehirn und Geist vereinen. Die zentrale Arbeitshypothese der ZiF-Forschungsgruppe lautet daher, dass den funktionellen Bereichen von Gehirn und Geist Wettstreit (competition) und Prioritätssteuerung (priority control) als Kernmerkmale gemeinsam sind. Für die ZiF-Gruppe konnten über 30 international führende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus verschiedenen Disziplinen, unter diesen Biologie, Informatik, Linguistik, Neurowissenschaften und Psychologie, gewonnen werden. Ein Hauptziel wird es sein, die Expertise dieser Forscherinnen und Forscher in den Bereichen Wahrnehmung, Gedächtnis und Handlung zu einer Suche nach den gemeinsamen Prinzipen Wettstreit

20 FORSCHUNGSGRUPPEN RESEARCH groups 20 und Prioritätssteuerung zusammenzuführen Prinzipien, die in übergreifenden Rahmenvorstellungen, Theorien und computationalen Modellen eingebettet sein können. Ausgangspunkt für die Annäherung an diese Prinzipien werden vier Perspektiven sein: (a) das visuelle Gehirn als Ausgangsbasis, (b) die Aufgabe als zentraler Einfluss auf Prioritätssteuerung und Wettbewerb, (c) Handeln in der natürlichen Umwelt als Herausforderung, und (d) Prioritätskarten als zentrales Element der Verknüpfung. Hierbei sollen die integrativen Prinzipien nicht nur die vorgenannten Bereiche umfassen, sondern auch für andere Bereiche offen sein, die ebenfalls Prioritätssteuerung und Wettstreit als wichtige Merkmale aufweisen. Eine erfolgreiche Suche nach den integrierenden Prinzipien von Wettstreit und Prioritätssteuerung wird nicht nur die Grundlagenforschung über Geist und Gehirn deutlich voranbringen, sondern könnte auch Anwendungsperspektiven hervorbringen, etwa die Entwicklung intelligenter autonomer Systeme für realistische Situationen oder die Diagnose und Behandlung neurologischer Patienten, die häufig unter gleichzeitiger Störung von selektiver Wahrnehmung, Gedächtnis und Handlung leiden, unterstützen. Anfragen contact zur ZiF-Forschungsgruppe Competion beantwortet der wissenschaftliche Assistent Dr. Gernot Horstmann Tel (0) gernot.horstmann@uni-bielefeld.de Informationen Further Information zur Forschungsgruppe Competition and priority control in mind & brain p Members and Fellows of the ZiF Research Group Edward Awh (Psychology & Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR/USA) Dana Ballard (Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, TX/USA) James Bisley (Neurobiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA/USA) Claus Bundesen (Psychology, University of Copenhagen, DNK) Leo Chelazzi (Neuroscience, University of Verona, ITA) Wolfgang Einhäuser-Treyer (Physics, Philipps-Universität Marburg, DEU) Marc Ernst (Neuroscience, Bielefeld University, DEU) Stefan Everling (Physiology & Pharmacology, Western University, London, CAN) John Findlay (Psychology, Durham University, GBR) Randy Flanagan (Psychology & Neuroscience, Queen s University, Kingston, CAN) Michael Goldberg (Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY/USA) Mary Hayhoe (Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, TX/USA) Andrew Hollingworth (Psychology, University of Iowa, IA/USA) Kenneth Holmqvist (Cognitive Science, Lund University, SWE) Gernot Horstmann (Psychology, ZiF, Bielefeld, DEU) Glyn Humphreys (Psychology, Oxford University, GBR) Pierre Jolicoeur (Psychology, University of Montreal, CAN) Søren Kyllingsbæk (Psychology, University of Copenhagen, DNK) Pia Knoeferle (Linguistics, Bielefeld University, DEU) Edgar Körner (Computer Science, Honda Research Institute, Offenbach, DEU) Ursula Körner (Computer Science, Honda Research Institute, Offenbach, DEU) Richard Krauzlis (Neurobiology, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD/USA) Gordon Logan (Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN/USA) Antje Nuthmann (Psychology, University of Edinburgh, GBR) Chris Olivers (Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, NLD) J. Kevin O'Regan (Psychology, Paris Descartes University, FRA) Laure Pisella (Neurosciences, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, FRA) Marc Pomplun (Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA/USA) Jane Riddoch (Psychology, University of Oxford, GBR) Helge Ritter (Computer Science, Bielefeld University, DEU) Jeffrey Schall (Neuroscience, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN/USA) Werner Schneider (Psychology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Jochen Steil (Psychology, Bielefeld University, DEU) Ben Tatler (Biology, University of Dundee, GBR) Jan Theeuwes (Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, NLD) Geoffrey Woodman (Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN/USA) Yaffa Yeshurun (Psychology, University of Haifa, ISR) Gregory Zelinsky (Psychology & Computer Science, Stony Brook University, NY/USA)