We describe the content and outcomes of the First Workshop on Open-Ended Evolution: Recent Progress and Future Milestones (OEE1), held during the ECAL 2015 conference at the University of York, UK, in July 2015. We briefly summarize the content of the workshop's talks, and identify the main themes that emerged from the open discussions. Two important conclusions from the discussions are: (1) the idea of pluralism about OEE—it seems clear that there is more than one interesting and important kind of OEE; and (2) the importance of distinguishing observable behavioral hallmarks of systems undergoing OEE from hypothesized underlying mechanisms that explain why a system exhibits those hallmarks. We summarize the different hallmarks and mechanisms discussed during the workshop, and list the specific systems that were highlighted with respect to particular hallmarks and mechanisms. We conclude by identifying some of the most important open research questions about OEE that are apparent in light of the discussions. The York workshop provides a foundation for a follow-up OEE2 workshop taking place at the ALIFE XV conference in Cancún, Mexico, in July 2016. Additional materials from the York workshop, including talk abstracts, presentation slides, and videos of each talk, are available at http://alife.org/ws/oee1 .

Computational autopoiesis—the realization of autopoietic entities in computational media—holds an important and distinctive role within the field of artificial life. Its earliest formulation by Francisco Varela, Humberto Maturana, and Ricardo Uribe was seminal in demonstrating the use of an artificial, computational medium to explore the most basic question of the abstract nature of living systems—over a decade in advance of the first Santa Fe Workshop on Artificial Life. The research program it originated has generated substantive demonstrations of progressively richer, lifelike phenomena. It has also sharply illuminated both conceptual and methodological problems in the field. This article provides an integrative overview of the sometimes disparate work in this area, and argues that computational autopoiesis continues to provide an effective framework for addressing key open problems in artificial life.

This article is a response to Rasmussen et al. [ Artificial Life, 7 , 329–350], in which the authors suggest that, within a particular simulation “framework,” there is a tight correspondence between the complexity of the primitive objects and the emergence of dynamical hierarchies. As an example they report a two-dimensional artificial chemistry that supports the spontaneous emergence of micellar structures, which they classify as third-order structures. We report in this article that essentially comparable phenomena can be produced with relatively simpler primitive objects. We also question the order classification of the micellar structures.

In the late 1940s John von Neumann began to work on what he intended as a comprehensive “theory of [complex] automata.” He started to develop a book length manuscript on the subject in 1952. However, he put it aside in 1953, apparently due to pressure of other work. Due to his tragically early death in 1957, he was never to return to it. The draft manuscript was eventually edited, and combined for publication with some related lecture transcripts, by Burks in 1966. It is clear from the time and effort that von Neumann invested in it that he considered this to be a very significant and substantial piece of work. However, subsequent commentators (beginning even with Burks) have found it surprisingly difficult to articulate this substance. Indeed, it has since been suggested that von Neumann's results in this area either are trivial, or, at the very least, could have been achieved by much simpler means. It is an enigma. In this paper I review the history of this debate (briefly) and then present my own attempt at resolving the issue by focusing on an analysis of von Neumann's problem situation . I claim that this reveals the true depth of von Neumann's achievement and influence on the subsequent development of this field, and further that it generates a whole family of new consequent problems, which can still serve to inform—if not actually define—the field of artificial life for many years to come.