preliminary topic discussions

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
-What is ‘Society 2.0’?
- Components of ‘Society 2.0’
- Information Systems are Biological and Artificial
-Pedagogy, Information Systems, and Societal Change

Part I: Biological Models for how Information Works
1.1: 'Biological Information Systems'
1.2: Biological Networks Exchange Information for the Survival of the Species
1.3: 'Biological Social-Software' as a deep history of cooperation and symbiosis
1.4: 'Cellular Information-flows': 'Vibrio Fischeri Communication' for Synchronous Action
1.5: 'Biological Social-Technology' of Networked Information Systems: Synchronous Collective- Movements of Fish
1.6: Chimpanzee Interpersonal Communication and Social Organization
1.7: The Homo-Sapien as an 'entity' using advanced physiological information technologies

Part II: The bionics of information flow and societal innovation
2.1: Current IT Media Lack 'Important Research Content'
2.2: Bionic methods of using IT for 'social-innovation'
2.3: All Organisms Use Bionic Methods within their Unique Contexts
2.4: Basic Similarities among the information flows of all organisms
2.5: Basic Differences between the information flows of all organisms
2.6 'Biologically Inspired Computing' as social collaboration and Part

Part III: The Evolution of Physiological and Artificial Human Information Technologies
3.1: Using Basic Human Physiological Information Technologies
3.2: Human Information Technologies Evolve
3.3: Human Societies Use Information to Innovate
3.4: Information-Knowledge-Innovation-Social Action
3.5: Examples of Mass-Human Collaboration Movements

Part IV: The Creation of the Digital Identity
4.1: The Creation of the Digital Self
4.2: Personhood Issues of Digital Identities
4.3: Digital Identities are Context and Purpose Specific
4.4: ‘Identity 2.0’ as a More Mature Understanding of Digital Identity

Part V: Fully Utilizing Social Media and Collective Consciousness to Better Inform Society
5.1: Collaborative Applications Facilitate ‘Social Media’
5.2: Web 2.0 as the ‘Social Software’ Context of Appropriately Informing Society
5.3: The Online Community and using Social-Presence To Create ‘Social-Capital’
5.4: Collective Consciousness is Providing Identity Empowerment
5.5: A Brief Case Study: Example of the Current “Green” Physical Technologies Movement




Part VI: Interpretation & Findings
6.1: Organisms Have Used Information Technologies Appropriately
6.2: Collaboration and Open Information As a Key to Survival
6.3: Human Usage of Bio-Info-Tech Can only Innovate to an Extent
6.4: Social Acceptance of Innovative Information Technologies
6.5: Investment Trends of Physical and Social Technologies
6.6: The Human Capacity to Innovate Social-Capital, Social-Software, and Social-Technology
6.7: Informed, Action-Oriented Entities and Societies
Part VII: An ASU Based ‘Research Social-Network’
7.1: A Research Social-Network using Web 2.0 Applications and Guidence
7.2: A Utility for Professors, Students, and Intellectuals
7.3: Mapping Previous Research Paths / Sources /
7.4: Interdisciplinary, Holistic Avenues for Collaboration and Further Research
7.5: Authentic Critiques of Intellectual Research
7.6: Democratic Rating Systems & Ratings of Innovativeness
7.7: Multifaceted, Integrative Problem Solving
Part VIII: Conclusions
8.1: ‘Society 2.0’ Defined in Context
8.2: The Human Understanding of Information Needs to Change
8.3: Can ‘Informed’ Beings Act in ‘Informed’ Ways?
8.3: ‘Society 2.0’ is Individual and Collective Action (IT CAN HAPPEN NOW)(supercede systemic issues
8.4: ‘Society 2.0’ Can Happen or Can Not Happen

Keywords: Social-Technology, Social-Software, Communities of Practice, Bionics, Digital Identity, Collective-Consciousness, Identity 2.0, Web 2.0, Social Media, Temporary Autonomous Zone

Introduction
What is ‘Society 2.0’?
‘Society 2.0’ is the idea that as the tools and processes which guide the use of information technologies continues to orient towards integrative methods of collaboration and information dissemination, a social orientation to becoming ‘informed’ should be more apparent at an individual level. This reorientation at an individual level should create the incentive for communities and society-at-large to therefore use such tools to manage, share, and discover innovative knowledge formations. If individuals are focused on finding the knowledge and information which will allow them to make more ‘informed’ decisions, than the collective actions and developments of society can create alternatives to the societal outcomes we see today. Through various methods of incorporating accessible and searchable interdisciplinary research through online media; ‘Society 2.0’ would use information technology to research, disseminate, collaborate, and coordinate what individuals should do to advance society. Although not considering 'natural' knowledge systems in the statement; in 1964 Oliver W. Holmes wrote “Knowledge exists in two forms: (1) "active knowledge," meaning that to be found in the brains of living human individuals and therefore available to them at any given moment as bases for actions, and (2) "passive (or potential) knowledge," which exists in the great reservoir of documents in which have been recorded the experiences, observations, thoughts, and discoveries of other men, chiefly those of the past”(Holmes 1.) Putting both our active and passive knowledge to action, fully representing our physical selves as the informed beings we are (or will be), and producing outcomes and externalities in the physical world that demonstrate the social understanding of our knowledge is the epistemological crux of “Society 2.0.”