ALife and Society: Editorial Introduction to the Artificial Life Conference 2016 Special Issue

Artificial life (ALife) research is not only about the production of knowledge, but is also a source of compelling and meaningful stories and narratives, especially now when they are needed most. Such power, so to speak, emerges from its own foundations as a discipline. It was Chris Langton in 1987 who said that “By extending the horizons of empirical research in biology beyond the territory currently circumscribed by life-as-we-know-it, the study of Artificial Life gives us access to the domain of life-as-it-could-be [...]” [1, p. 1]. The very notion of life-as-it-could-be opened up many possibilities to explore, and released the study of life from its material and our cognitive constraints. The study of life did not have to be limited to carbon-based entities, DNA or proteins. It could also be about general and universal processes that could be implemented and realized in multiple forms. Moreover, while ALife was about biology at the beginning, its rationale and methods are now shared by many other domains, including chemistry, engineering, and the social sciences. In other words, the power to envision and synthesize “what is possible” beyond “what is” has transcended disciplinary boundaries. It also produces the material for the exploration of narratives about how things can be in principle and not only about their current state of being. Artificial life has been able to touch other areas of study besides biology for at least two reasons: (1) It directly deals with the creation, analysis, and control of complex systems, and (2) there is wide recognition that the world is complex. It is not only that the world is naturally complex, but that the

[1]  Martin M. Hanczyc,et al.  Multi-Armed Droplets as Shape-Changing Protocells , 2018, Artificial Life.

[2]  Christopher G. Langton.  Artificial life : the proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems held September, 1987, in Los Alamos, New Mexico , 1989 .

[3]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Robustness and Contingent History: From Prisoner's Dilemma to Gaia Theory , 2018, Artificial Life.

[4]  John S. McCaskill,et al.  Living Technology: Exploiting Life's Principles in Technology , 2010, Artificial Life.

[5]  Simon T. Powers,et al.  The Institutional Approach for Modeling the Evolution of Human Societies , 2016, Artificial Life.

[6]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems , 2005 .

[7]  Hector Zenil,et al.  Undecidability and Irreducibility Conditions for Open-Ended Evolution and Emergence , 2016, Artificial Life.

[8]  Tom Froese,et al.  The Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Life , 2014, Front. Robot. AI.

[9]  Seth Bullock,et al.  Simulation models as opaque thought experiments , 2000 .

[10]  Peter Andras,et al.  Social Learning and Cultural Evolution in Artificial Life , 2018, Artificial Life.

[11]  Alexandra S. Penn.  Report on the ISAL Special Session on ALife and Society, ALife XV, Cancún, Mexico, 2016 , 2018, Artificial Life.

[12]  Nathaniel Virgo,et al.  The Biological Foundations of Enactivism: A Report on a Workshop Held at Artificial Life XV , 2018, Artificial Life.

[13]  Alexandra S. Penn.  A New Home for a Vital Conversation: Introducing the ALife Societal Impact Section and Going Back to Bio-Inspiration for the Internet , 2017, Artificial Life.