Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. A workshop and this document 1.2. Framing origins of life science 1.2.1. What do we mean by the origins of life (OoL)? 1.2.2. Defining life 1.2.3. How should we characterize approaches to OoL science? 1.2.4. One path to life or many? 2. A Strategy for Origins of Life Research 2.1. Outcomes—key questions and investigations 2.1.1. Domain 1: Theory 2.1.2. Domain 2: Practice 2.1.3. Domain 3: Process 2.1.4. Domain 4: Future studies 2.2. EON Roadmap 2.3. Relationship to NASA Astrobiology Roadmap and Strategy documents and the European AstRoMap Appendix I Appendix II Supplementary Materials References

Swarming behavior is common in biology, from cell colonies to insect swarms and bird flocks. However, the conditions leading to the emergence of such behavior are still subject to research. Since Reynolds’ boids, many artificial models have reproduced swarming behavior, focusing on details ranging from obstacle avoidance to the introduction of fixed leaders. This paper presents a model of evolved artificial agents, able to develop swarming using only their ability to listen to each other’s signals. The model simulates a population of agents looking for a vital resource they cannot directly detect, in a 3D environment. Instead of a centralized algorithm, each agent is controlled by an artificial neural network, whose weights are encoded in a genotype and adapted by an original asynchronous genetic algorithm. The results demonstrate that agents progressively evolve the ability to use the information exchanged between each other via signaling to establish temporary leader-follower relations. These relations allow agents to form swarming patterns, emerging as a transient behavior that improves the agents’ ability to forage for the resource. Once they have acquired the ability to swarm, the individuals are able to outperform the non-swarmers at finding the resource. The population hence reaches a neutral evolutionary space which leads to a genetic drift of the genotypes. This reductionist approach to signal-based swarming not only contributes to shed light on the minimal conditions for the evolution of a swarming behavior, but also more generally it exemplifies the effect communication can have on optimal search patterns in collective groups of individuals.

We propose an approach to open-ended evolution via the simulation of swarm dynamics. In nature, swarms possess remarkable properties, which allow many organisms, from swarming bacteria to ants and flocking birds, to form higher-order structures that enhance their behavior as a group. Swarm simulations highlight three important factors to create novelty and diversity: (a) communication generates combinatorial cooperative dynamics, (b) concurrency allows for separation of time scales, and (c) complexity and size increases push the system towards transitions in innovation. We illustrate these three components in a model computing the continuous evolution of a swarm of agents. The results, divided into three distinct applications, show how emergent structures are capable of filtering information through the bottleneck of their memory, to produce meaningful novelty and diversity within their simulated environment. We propose an approach to open-ended evolution via the simulation of swarm dynamics. In nature, swarms possess remarkable properties, which allow many organisms, from swarming bacteria to ants and flocking birds, to form higher-order structures that enhance their behavior as a group. Swarm simulations highlight three important factors to create novelty and diversity: (a) communication generates combinatorial cooperative dynamics, (b) concurrency allows for separation of time scales, and (c) complexity and size increases push the system towards transitions in innovation. We illustrate these three components in a model computing the continuous evolution of a swarm of agents. The results, divided into three distinct applications, show how emergent structures are capable of filtering information through the bottleneck of their memory, to produce meaningful novelty and diversity within their simulated environment. We propose an approach to open-ended evolution via the simulation of swarm dynamics. In nature, swarms possess remarkable properties, which allow many organisms, from swarming bacteria to ants and flocking birds, to form higher-order structures that enhance their behavior as a group. Swarm simulations highlight three important factors to create novelty and diversity: (a) communication generates combinatorial cooperative dynamics, (b) concurrency allows for separation of time scales, and (c) complexity and size increases push the system towards transitions in innovation. We illustrate these three components in a model computing the continuous evolution of a swarm of agents. The results, divided into three distinct applications, show how emergent structures are capable of filtering information through the bottleneck of their memory, to produce meaningful novelty and diversity within their simulated environment.

The relationship between humans and technology has attracted increasing attention with the advent of ever stronger models of artificial intelligence. Humans and technology are intertwined within multiple autopoietic loops of stress, care, and intelligence. This paper suggests that technology should not be seen as a mere tool serving humans' needs, but rather as a partner in a rich relationship with humans. Our model for understanding autopoietic systems applies equally to biological, technological, and hybrid systems. Regardless of their substrates, all intelligent agents can be understood as needing to respond to a perceived mismatch between what is and what should be. We take this observation, which is evidence of intrinsic links between ontology and ethics, as the basis for proposing a stress-care-intelligence feedback loop (SCI loop for short). We note that the SCI loop provides a perspective on agency that does not require recourse to explanatorily burdensome notions of permanent and singular essences. SCI loops can be seen as individuals only by virtue of their dynamics, and are thus intrinsically integrative and transformational. We begin by considering the transition from poiesis to autopoiesis in Heidegger and the subsequent enactivist tradition, and on this basis formulate and explain the SCI loop. In an acknowledgment of Maturana's and Varela's project, our findings are considered against the backdrop of a classic Buddhist model for the cultivation of intelligence, known as the bodhisattva. We conclude by noting that SCI loops of human and technological agency can be seen as mutually integrative by noticing the stress-transfers between them. The loop framework thus acknowledges encounters and interactions between humans and technology in a way that does not relegate one to the subservience of the other (neither in ontological nor in ethical terms), suggesting instead integration and mutual respect as the default for their engagements. Moreover, an acknowledgment of diverse, multiscale embodiments of intelligence suggests an expansive model of ethics not bound by artificial, limited criteria based on privileged composition or history of an agent. The implications for our journey into the future appear numerous.

The field of Artificial Life studies the nature of the living state by modeling and synthesizing living systems. Such systems, under certain conditions, may come to deserve moral consideration similar to that given to nonhuman vertebrates or even human beings. The fact that these systems are nonhuman and evolve in a potentially radically different substrate should not be seen as an insurmountable obstacle to their potentially having rights, if they are sufficiently sophisticated in other respects. Nor should the fact that they owe their existence to us be seen as reducing their status as targets of moral concern. On the contrary, creators of Artificial Life may have special obligations to their creations, resembling those of an owner to their pet or a parent to their child. For a field that aims to create artificial life-forms with increasing levels of sophistication, it is crucial to consider the possible ethical implications of our activities, with an eye toward assessing potential moral obligations for which we should be prepared. If Artificial Life is larger than life, then the ethics of artificial beings should be larger than human ethics.