This is a report on the Biological Foundations of Enactivism Workshop, which was held as part of Artificial Life XV. The workshop aimed to revisit enactivism's contributions to biology and to revitalize the discussion of autonomy with the goal of grounding it in quantitative definitions based in observable phenomena. This report summarizes some of the important issues addressed in the workshop's talks and discussions, which include how to identify emergent individuals out of an environmental background, what the roles of autonomy and normativity are in biological theory, how new autonomous agents can spontaneously emerge at the origins of life, and what science can say about subjective experience.

Emergent individuals are often characterized with respect to their viability : their ability to maintain themselves and persist in variable environments. As such individuals interact with an environment, they undergo sequences of structural changes that correspond to their ontogenies. Ultimately, individuals that adapt to their environment, and increase their chances of survival, persist. This article provides an initial step towards a more formal treatment of these concepts. A network of possible ontogenies is uncovered by subjecting a model protocell to sequential perturbations and mapping the resulting structural configurations. The analysis of this network reveals trends in how the protocell can move between configurations, how its morphology changes, and how the role of the environment varies throughout. Viability is defined as expected life span given an initial configuration. This leads to two notions of adaptivity: a local adaptivity that addresses how viability changes in plastic transitions, and a global adaptivity that looks at longer-term tendencies for increased viability. To demonstrate how different protocell-environment pairings produce different patterns of ontogenic change, we generate and analyze a second ontogenic network for the same protocell in a different environment. Finally, the mechanisms of a minimal adaptive transition are analyzed, and it is shown that these rely on distributed spatial processes rather than an explicit regulatory mechanism. The combination of this model and analytical techniques provides a foundation for studying the emergence of viability, ontogeny, and adaptivity in more biologically realistic systems.

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 .

We introduce a spatial model of concentration dynamics that supports the emergence of spatiotemporal inhomogeneities that engage in metabolism–boundary co-construction. These configurations exhibit disintegration following some perturbations, and self-repair in response to others. We define robustness as a viable configuration's tendency to return to its prior configuration in response to perturbations, and plasticity as a viable configuration's tendency to change to other viable configurations. These properties are demonstrated and quantified in the model, allowing us to map a space of viable configurations and their possible transitions. Combining robustness and plasticity provides a measure of viability as the average expected survival time under ongoing perturbation, and allows us to measure how viability is affected as the configuration undergoes transitions. The framework introduced here is independent of the specific model we used, and is applicable for quantifying robustness, plasticity, and viability in any computational model of artificial life that demonstrates the conditions for viability that we promote.