Even when concepts similar to emergence have been used since antiquity, we lack an agreed definition. However, emergence has been identified as one of the main features of complex systems. Most would agree on the statement “life is complex.” Thus understanding emergence and complexity should benefit the study of living systems. It can be said that life emerges from the interactions of complex molecules. But how useful is this to understanding living systems? Artificial Life (ALife) has been developed in recent decades to study life using a synthetic approach: Build it to understand it. ALife systems are not so complex, be they soft (simulations), hard (robots), or wet(protocells). Thus, we can aim at first understanding emergence in ALife, to then use this knowledge in biology. I argue that to understand emergence and life, it becomes useful to use information as a framework. In a general sense, I define emergence as information that is not present at one scale but present at another. This perspective avoids problems of studying emergence from a materialist framework and can also be useful in the study of self-organization and complexity.

Self-organization can be broadly defined as the ability of a system to display ordered spatiotemporal patterns solely as the result of the interactions among the system components. Processes of this kind characterize both living and artificial systems, making self-organization a concept that is at the basis of several disciplines, from physics to biology and engineering. Placed at the frontiers between disciplines, artificial life (ALife) has heavily borrowed concepts and tools from the study of self-organization, providing mechanistic interpretations of lifelike phenomena as well as useful constructivist approaches to artificial system design. Despite its broad usage within ALife, the concept of self-organization has been often excessively stretched or misinterpreted, calling for a clarification that could help with tracing the borders between what can and cannot be considered self-organization. In this review, we discuss the fundamental aspects of self-organization and list the main usages within three primary ALife domains, namely “soft” (mathematical/computational modeling), “hard” (physical robots), and “wet” (chemical/biological systems) ALife. We also provide a classification to locate this research. Finally, we discuss the usefulness of self-organization and related concepts within ALife studies, point to perspectives and challenges for future research, and list open questions. We hope that this work will motivate discussions related to self-organization in ALife and related fields.

This article presents an overview of current and potential applications of living technology to some urban problems. Living technology can be described as technology that exhibits the core features of living systems. These features can be useful to solve dynamic problems. In particular, urban problems concerning mobility, logistics, telecommunications, governance, safety, sustainability, and society and culture are presented, and solutions involving living technology are reviewed. A methodology for developing living technology is mentioned, and supraoptimal public transportation systems are used as a case study to illustrate the benefits of urban living technology. Finally, the usefulness of describing cities as living systems is discussed.

Random Boolean networks (RBNs) have been a popular model of genetic regulatory networks for more than four decades. However, most RBN studies have been made with random topologies, while real regulatory networks have been found to be modular. In this work, we extend classical RBNs to define modular RBNs. Statistical experiments and analytical results show that modularity has a strong effect on the properties of RBNs. In particular, modular RBNs have more attractors, and are closer to criticality when chaotic dynamics would be expected, than classical RBNs.