This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Artificial life article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archive (2003-2006), Archive (2007)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jnmasur,
Jgus716,
AsherJ22.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Is artificial life possible? I say it is. I think there will be man-made / manufactured / synthesized objects which are truly alive. Some here have said that such life will not be called "artificial life" but "life". I agree they will be truly alive and deny what those who wish to drop the moniker "artificial" must think "artificial" means: They think it means "not really". Not it doesn't! It means "not naturally occurring". Artificial life will one day exist. What say you? Paul Beardsell 07:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am being obviously disingenuous here: My real question is what do we mean by "artificial life" when we ask if it is possible. Of course "the study of a.l." is possible. The questions asks if the beasties will ever be manufactured. Paul Beardsell 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Another telling question exposing the meaning of the term "artificial life": What does the phrase "artificial life itself" refer to? Paul Beardsell 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
An easy proof that it is not a subset would be finding one example. The best done so far is HAL 9000. If it is alive then it is a legitimate study of ALife researchers. If not, then it still might be as it may have interesting components relevant to ALife research. But, as it is not alive, then it does not falsify the proposition. I note that Numsgil disagrees with the proposition and uses HAL 9000 as an example to illustrate his disagreement. He says HAL is nothing to do with ALife BECAUSE it is an example of AI. (See next section.) But he denies HAL is alive anyway so no contest. Paul Beardsell 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I say that if an entity is alive and if it is not naturally occurring then it is (a) artificial and (b) life by definition and tautology respectively. As ALife is the study of the components and systems necessary for artificial life (bottom up) and is (or will be) of the beasties themselves (top down) then it seems that all (putative) artificial life (forms) are legitimate targets of research by ALIfe researchers. Indeed, I'm sure all or most ALIfe researchers would jump at the chance. Paul Beardsell 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is a body which is intelligent also alive? Not necessarily, I suggest. And is something which is alive also intelligent. No. But does the fact that a body is artificial and also intelligent preclude it from being alive? No. If artificially alive entities are the legitimate study of ALife researchers (and name me one other than Numsgil who says they're not [or won't be when they exist]) then the presence of intelligence by the artificially alive body will not preclude interest from ALife researchers.
Paul Beardsell 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Creatures artificial life? Or just a simulation of artificial life? Or a tool of ALife research?
Paul Beardsell 07:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
In light of the above I intend to change the introductory paragraph of the article to say that ALife includes the study of artificial life (forms) as well as their constituent components and systems. Paul Beardsell 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Artificial life researchers do not refrain from studying things which are alive any more than they refrain from studying things which are not alive. So, to answer your question, no. Which is what I've meant when I said that Artificial Life does not concern itself with wether what it studies is alive or not. -- Numsgil 11:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Synthetic biology -- Numsgil 11:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
synthetic biology primarily. And they're the only ones that are really even close -- Numsgil 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
ALife is the study of the components and systems necessary for artificial life and is (or will be, as soon as they are available) the study of the artificial life forms themselves. Discuss. Paul Beardsell 07:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
And see also here and here. You have already agreed that no one can claim exlusivity on the meaning of a phrase. Paul Beardsell 07:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes! But it has been you started of by saying there is no way you would consider the alife (forms) being covered on this page. Even though you have now resiled from the position that alife (study) and alife (forms) are not related, even though you now concede (at times) that the study of alife (forms) is a subset of the domain of alife (study), you continue to resist this. Paul Beardsell 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is primarily aimed towards Paul. This article describes something very interesting. I'd say that's a closer mark to what you think Artificial Life is, right? -- Numsgil 10:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A follow up, this article from NOVA confuses things to no end. They clearly aren't talking about Artificial Life, but artificial life. They also use "synthetic life" in places. Just trying to show some good faith ;) -- Numsgil 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the see also to simulated reality to synthetic life, since it would seem to have very little to do with the present field of study, and a little more to do with the life forms which are artificial. -- Numsgil 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have alot of time, so I'm just going to write this here, at the end, since this is the subject of so much confusion.
1. The domain of what Artificial Life studies and what could possibly be called synthetic life overlap, but neither is entirely contained within the other.
2. Partly due to the above, and partly because otherwise the article would be too long, Artificial Life and synthetic life need two seperate articles. 3. Also partly because synthetic life would be at the moment an article primarily on philosophy, and Artificial Life is primarily a grounded hard science, the two belong in seperate articles. 3. A disambiguation link at the top of both articles makes more sense than a dedicated disambiguation page, since it's unlikely that another article needing the artificial life namespace will occurr anytime soon. 4. The artificial life namespace should belong to Artificial Life instead of synthetic life, partly because Artificial Life seems to be the more common usage (I can do some work to verify this if people think it's worthwhile to do so). 5. The synthetic life article should remain at synthetic life because it better allows for a crossover to the synthetic biology article (when synthetic life is created, it will probably first be from work done in synthetic biology. See NOVA site I linked eariler)
I will begin work on expanding both Artificial Life and synthetic life to encorporate some sources, but such work shouldn't conflict too heavily with the outcome of this discussion. -- Numsgil 06:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
For your POV it to be reflected to the exclusion of other POV's in the article breaks the WP NPOV policy. Paul Beardsell 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(i) There is no difference between synthetic life (forms) and artificial life (forms). If HAL is alive then he is both artificial and synthetic. If he is not an example of synthetic life, then he is not an example of artificial life either. HAL is portrayed as a conscious computer. Whether or not that makes him alive I am undecided about, and affects nothing I have said on this talk page one iota.
(ii)All artificial life (forms) are in the domain of Artificial Life (study). That does not mean everything in that domain is alive, far from it. Nevertheless, ALife researchers would be fighting amongst each other to get their hands on examples of artificial life (forms) (or, equivalently, synthetic life (forms)). In so doing they would not consider themselves to be changing their field of research.
(iii) Just as mathematics (itself) and (the study of) mathematics are addressed at mathematics in overview (and there are numerous other similar WP examples), so should artificial life (itself) and (the study of) artificial life be addressed in overview at artificial life.
Paul Beardsell 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am happy, as Paul notes, with what I produced. I do want to get the generalisation contained in Jay's copy, respecting the variety of models, soft, hard, and wet. I like the capitalisation note. I do not want to change the form. I will continue to discuss the content. Paul, don't be so quick to throw out an improvement just because it is buried in other text that you do not like. We now agree on what the subject is (the field, its subject matter, any products produced - examples of living beings of other than natural origin), we can find a way to agree on article structure. Mine is just a suggestion. By WP rules, it would seem the vote of 2 to 1 restricts direct contravening alteration. That does not mean that discussion is out. Jay, let me see how we can keep comity. William R. Buckley 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We're told that there is no difference between "synthetic life" and "artificial life". The "study of life" is called "biology". "Synthetic biology" is then the "study of artificial life", which is (or, if you like and for the sake of argument, is part of**), "Artificial Life (study)". Therefore "synthetic biology" and "Artificial Life (the study of)" are the same. (From **: Or, possibly, "synthetic biology" is part of "Artificial Life (the study of)". When asked what the name of the field is which studies something is called and the answer given is X, and X is a subset of Y, then Y is also a correct answer. Paul Beardsell 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Numsgil kindly provided this ref.
Just wondering why it's being called "Alife"? Did one of the editors come up with it or is that actually the common usage? I bring this up because Artificial Intelligence is not called "Aintelligence", so it seems strange to be calling it "Alife".
It should be called Artificial Life unless other people actually refer to is as "Alife".
In my humble opinion. =-)
Lordvolton 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we have removed the image of Creatures replaced by Braitenberg vehicles. imho Creatures has as much or more technology and relevance to alife than Braitenberg. If Braitenberg is mentioned in this article, stuff like Conway's Game of Life should also be given a mention! Is there not room for more images and maybe even a gallery in this article? MattOates (Ulti) 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the numerous links to pages in other language Wikipedias which relate to 'artificial intelligence' and not 'artificial life' (added by robots?) are not correct and should be removed. I have fixed the Esperanto one by creating an article for A-life in the Esperanto Wikipedia and changed the link. Can others do similar with other links, or delete them if inappropriate? Do other people agree? Bofoc Tagar 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I think this article could do with a real clean up, and present some hard factual information, instead of the very subjective and spurious content that is presented currently. There is a lot of POV towards alife being some ephemeral field devoid of any relation to AI when this is really not the case. Alife is based upon current research in scruffy bottom up AI, and the current comment that AI is traditionaly top down is complete nonsense, that was true 50 years ago! The include of the list page is really horrible and makes the article feel very bitty, I suggest we just put a link to the article as with Digital organism. I would appreciate some discussion about what should be in this main article on alife as I've started to do some edits that could be controversial already ;) If anyone has some nice references to seminal papers in the field please post some {{cite}} blocks here. Thanks MattOates (Ulti) 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There is little genuine overlap between computer alife and wet alife. Wet alife needs its own article.-- SallyForth123 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the article:
"Program-based (section)
These contain organisms with a complex DNA language, usually Turing complete. This language is more often in the form of a computer program than actual biological DNA."
Are there any cases where it is not in the form of a computer program?
Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Larry Yaeger and I discussed the historical context of this article in the News section of;
http://www.biota.org/podcast/live.html#40
With regards to the omission of Richard Dawkins, Chris Langton and a historical overview of the field. Also with the difficulty maintaining Jeffrey Ventrella and his related work. Hats off to Numsgil for his work to-date and I continue to make pleas for folks in the artificial life community to make needed changes to this article. I just wanted to note the discussion here and also thank all those who are working to improve this entry. -- Barbalet ( talk) 10:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to biological life, regardless of how that life comes into being it is not artificial life.-- 67.58.84.7 ( talk) 06:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The current tag says the "article may confuse some readers, so check the talk." In fact, the article is clear and well written, it's the talk that's a confusing mess. Editors that are fine writers and have done a great job on the article itself, were quibbling about semantics thereafter. I'd remove the article tag, the hair splitting on semantics has done nothing to damage the article itself. Anyone agree or disagree? Additional note: the field has been significantly updated since this article, and an outstanding overview can be found in The Allure of Machinic Life: Cybernetics, Artificial Life, and the New AI by John Johnston. Phoenixthebird ( talk) 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, going over the tone of some of the discussions suggests one of the "5 pillars" -- WP:Civility Phoenixthebird ( talk) 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's in the 1986 paper. 3rd word. Although it was admittedly spelt "A-life" there. Also, the website for the International Society of Artificial Life is alife.org. -- TSeeker ( talk) 07:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Synthetic_life#Contradiction -- 126.109.230.149 ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the "Software-Based" section of the article, there is a mention of a program called "DOSE", launched in 2012, but there's no actual page for it, nor there's a source, and the incredibly vague name makes it impossible to look for it over the internet. If anyone knows what this is, can someone care to make an article, put a link or cite a reference? That is to make it useful for a regular user.
Concheria ( talk) 18:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
DOSE seems to be a Python library for a-life research, described in this paper: http://ojs.pythonpapers.org/index.php/tpp/article/view/245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.242.124 ( talk) 14:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I wonder why this one .. [2] .. never got any attention and isn't mentioned as notable neither here, nor in History_of_artificial_life. It's based on executable (& random mutating) dna +(!) neural net; + orgs have distinct freely combinable body parts (skeleton); + it takes place in a distinct world (grass, stones, orgs remainders as food and/or obstacle); senses (hear distance to other orgs and border of world) and even the possibility of communicating are involved; also mating is possible. From simple trivial scratch, organisms evolve e.g. to herbivores and carnivores (indeed chasing those herbivores) in upto hundreds of generations without dying out, but rather evolving to fitness under given circumstances. It is not deterministic (like e.g. evolve 4.0 or a cellular automaton, as random is involved), but dynamic to evolve diversity in any of its given parameters. .. Guess it got outperformed by "creatures" and it's too much old-fashion graphics at the time and simply didn't get the promotion it would have deserved and still does .. aside "framsticks" it is upto today imho the best that I found. [signed: DE:Benutzer:RoNeunzig ] -- 217.84.101.21 ( talk) 12:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Artificial life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
At present, the commonly accepted definition of life does not consider any current alife simulations or software to be alive, and they do not constitute part of the evolutionary process of any ecosystem.
I think that this could be untrue, considering that there are many genetic algorithms used in artificial life, and if artificial life allows a being to have some structure that is given to them from their creation but is also mutable and allows these beings to die, than effectively an evolutionary system is created. 73.69.254.249 ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Artificial life article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archive (2003-2006), Archive (2007)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jnmasur,
Jgus716,
AsherJ22.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Is artificial life possible? I say it is. I think there will be man-made / manufactured / synthesized objects which are truly alive. Some here have said that such life will not be called "artificial life" but "life". I agree they will be truly alive and deny what those who wish to drop the moniker "artificial" must think "artificial" means: They think it means "not really". Not it doesn't! It means "not naturally occurring". Artificial life will one day exist. What say you? Paul Beardsell 07:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am being obviously disingenuous here: My real question is what do we mean by "artificial life" when we ask if it is possible. Of course "the study of a.l." is possible. The questions asks if the beasties will ever be manufactured. Paul Beardsell 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Another telling question exposing the meaning of the term "artificial life": What does the phrase "artificial life itself" refer to? Paul Beardsell 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
An easy proof that it is not a subset would be finding one example. The best done so far is HAL 9000. If it is alive then it is a legitimate study of ALife researchers. If not, then it still might be as it may have interesting components relevant to ALife research. But, as it is not alive, then it does not falsify the proposition. I note that Numsgil disagrees with the proposition and uses HAL 9000 as an example to illustrate his disagreement. He says HAL is nothing to do with ALife BECAUSE it is an example of AI. (See next section.) But he denies HAL is alive anyway so no contest. Paul Beardsell 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I say that if an entity is alive and if it is not naturally occurring then it is (a) artificial and (b) life by definition and tautology respectively. As ALife is the study of the components and systems necessary for artificial life (bottom up) and is (or will be) of the beasties themselves (top down) then it seems that all (putative) artificial life (forms) are legitimate targets of research by ALIfe researchers. Indeed, I'm sure all or most ALIfe researchers would jump at the chance. Paul Beardsell 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is a body which is intelligent also alive? Not necessarily, I suggest. And is something which is alive also intelligent. No. But does the fact that a body is artificial and also intelligent preclude it from being alive? No. If artificially alive entities are the legitimate study of ALife researchers (and name me one other than Numsgil who says they're not [or won't be when they exist]) then the presence of intelligence by the artificially alive body will not preclude interest from ALife researchers.
Paul Beardsell 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Creatures artificial life? Or just a simulation of artificial life? Or a tool of ALife research?
Paul Beardsell 07:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
In light of the above I intend to change the introductory paragraph of the article to say that ALife includes the study of artificial life (forms) as well as their constituent components and systems. Paul Beardsell 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Artificial life researchers do not refrain from studying things which are alive any more than they refrain from studying things which are not alive. So, to answer your question, no. Which is what I've meant when I said that Artificial Life does not concern itself with wether what it studies is alive or not. -- Numsgil 11:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Synthetic biology -- Numsgil 11:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
synthetic biology primarily. And they're the only ones that are really even close -- Numsgil 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
ALife is the study of the components and systems necessary for artificial life and is (or will be, as soon as they are available) the study of the artificial life forms themselves. Discuss. Paul Beardsell 07:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
And see also here and here. You have already agreed that no one can claim exlusivity on the meaning of a phrase. Paul Beardsell 07:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes! But it has been you started of by saying there is no way you would consider the alife (forms) being covered on this page. Even though you have now resiled from the position that alife (study) and alife (forms) are not related, even though you now concede (at times) that the study of alife (forms) is a subset of the domain of alife (study), you continue to resist this. Paul Beardsell 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is primarily aimed towards Paul. This article describes something very interesting. I'd say that's a closer mark to what you think Artificial Life is, right? -- Numsgil 10:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A follow up, this article from NOVA confuses things to no end. They clearly aren't talking about Artificial Life, but artificial life. They also use "synthetic life" in places. Just trying to show some good faith ;) -- Numsgil 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the see also to simulated reality to synthetic life, since it would seem to have very little to do with the present field of study, and a little more to do with the life forms which are artificial. -- Numsgil 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have alot of time, so I'm just going to write this here, at the end, since this is the subject of so much confusion.
1. The domain of what Artificial Life studies and what could possibly be called synthetic life overlap, but neither is entirely contained within the other.
2. Partly due to the above, and partly because otherwise the article would be too long, Artificial Life and synthetic life need two seperate articles. 3. Also partly because synthetic life would be at the moment an article primarily on philosophy, and Artificial Life is primarily a grounded hard science, the two belong in seperate articles. 3. A disambiguation link at the top of both articles makes more sense than a dedicated disambiguation page, since it's unlikely that another article needing the artificial life namespace will occurr anytime soon. 4. The artificial life namespace should belong to Artificial Life instead of synthetic life, partly because Artificial Life seems to be the more common usage (I can do some work to verify this if people think it's worthwhile to do so). 5. The synthetic life article should remain at synthetic life because it better allows for a crossover to the synthetic biology article (when synthetic life is created, it will probably first be from work done in synthetic biology. See NOVA site I linked eariler)
I will begin work on expanding both Artificial Life and synthetic life to encorporate some sources, but such work shouldn't conflict too heavily with the outcome of this discussion. -- Numsgil 06:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
For your POV it to be reflected to the exclusion of other POV's in the article breaks the WP NPOV policy. Paul Beardsell 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(i) There is no difference between synthetic life (forms) and artificial life (forms). If HAL is alive then he is both artificial and synthetic. If he is not an example of synthetic life, then he is not an example of artificial life either. HAL is portrayed as a conscious computer. Whether or not that makes him alive I am undecided about, and affects nothing I have said on this talk page one iota.
(ii)All artificial life (forms) are in the domain of Artificial Life (study). That does not mean everything in that domain is alive, far from it. Nevertheless, ALife researchers would be fighting amongst each other to get their hands on examples of artificial life (forms) (or, equivalently, synthetic life (forms)). In so doing they would not consider themselves to be changing their field of research.
(iii) Just as mathematics (itself) and (the study of) mathematics are addressed at mathematics in overview (and there are numerous other similar WP examples), so should artificial life (itself) and (the study of) artificial life be addressed in overview at artificial life.
Paul Beardsell 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am happy, as Paul notes, with what I produced. I do want to get the generalisation contained in Jay's copy, respecting the variety of models, soft, hard, and wet. I like the capitalisation note. I do not want to change the form. I will continue to discuss the content. Paul, don't be so quick to throw out an improvement just because it is buried in other text that you do not like. We now agree on what the subject is (the field, its subject matter, any products produced - examples of living beings of other than natural origin), we can find a way to agree on article structure. Mine is just a suggestion. By WP rules, it would seem the vote of 2 to 1 restricts direct contravening alteration. That does not mean that discussion is out. Jay, let me see how we can keep comity. William R. Buckley 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We're told that there is no difference between "synthetic life" and "artificial life". The "study of life" is called "biology". "Synthetic biology" is then the "study of artificial life", which is (or, if you like and for the sake of argument, is part of**), "Artificial Life (study)". Therefore "synthetic biology" and "Artificial Life (the study of)" are the same. (From **: Or, possibly, "synthetic biology" is part of "Artificial Life (the study of)". When asked what the name of the field is which studies something is called and the answer given is X, and X is a subset of Y, then Y is also a correct answer. Paul Beardsell 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Numsgil kindly provided this ref.
Just wondering why it's being called "Alife"? Did one of the editors come up with it or is that actually the common usage? I bring this up because Artificial Intelligence is not called "Aintelligence", so it seems strange to be calling it "Alife".
It should be called Artificial Life unless other people actually refer to is as "Alife".
In my humble opinion. =-)
Lordvolton 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we have removed the image of Creatures replaced by Braitenberg vehicles. imho Creatures has as much or more technology and relevance to alife than Braitenberg. If Braitenberg is mentioned in this article, stuff like Conway's Game of Life should also be given a mention! Is there not room for more images and maybe even a gallery in this article? MattOates (Ulti) 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the numerous links to pages in other language Wikipedias which relate to 'artificial intelligence' and not 'artificial life' (added by robots?) are not correct and should be removed. I have fixed the Esperanto one by creating an article for A-life in the Esperanto Wikipedia and changed the link. Can others do similar with other links, or delete them if inappropriate? Do other people agree? Bofoc Tagar 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I think this article could do with a real clean up, and present some hard factual information, instead of the very subjective and spurious content that is presented currently. There is a lot of POV towards alife being some ephemeral field devoid of any relation to AI when this is really not the case. Alife is based upon current research in scruffy bottom up AI, and the current comment that AI is traditionaly top down is complete nonsense, that was true 50 years ago! The include of the list page is really horrible and makes the article feel very bitty, I suggest we just put a link to the article as with Digital organism. I would appreciate some discussion about what should be in this main article on alife as I've started to do some edits that could be controversial already ;) If anyone has some nice references to seminal papers in the field please post some {{cite}} blocks here. Thanks MattOates (Ulti) 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There is little genuine overlap between computer alife and wet alife. Wet alife needs its own article.-- SallyForth123 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the article:
"Program-based (section)
These contain organisms with a complex DNA language, usually Turing complete. This language is more often in the form of a computer program than actual biological DNA."
Are there any cases where it is not in the form of a computer program?
Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Larry Yaeger and I discussed the historical context of this article in the News section of;
http://www.biota.org/podcast/live.html#40
With regards to the omission of Richard Dawkins, Chris Langton and a historical overview of the field. Also with the difficulty maintaining Jeffrey Ventrella and his related work. Hats off to Numsgil for his work to-date and I continue to make pleas for folks in the artificial life community to make needed changes to this article. I just wanted to note the discussion here and also thank all those who are working to improve this entry. -- Barbalet ( talk) 10:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to biological life, regardless of how that life comes into being it is not artificial life.-- 67.58.84.7 ( talk) 06:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The current tag says the "article may confuse some readers, so check the talk." In fact, the article is clear and well written, it's the talk that's a confusing mess. Editors that are fine writers and have done a great job on the article itself, were quibbling about semantics thereafter. I'd remove the article tag, the hair splitting on semantics has done nothing to damage the article itself. Anyone agree or disagree? Additional note: the field has been significantly updated since this article, and an outstanding overview can be found in The Allure of Machinic Life: Cybernetics, Artificial Life, and the New AI by John Johnston. Phoenixthebird ( talk) 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, going over the tone of some of the discussions suggests one of the "5 pillars" -- WP:Civility Phoenixthebird ( talk) 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's in the 1986 paper. 3rd word. Although it was admittedly spelt "A-life" there. Also, the website for the International Society of Artificial Life is alife.org. -- TSeeker ( talk) 07:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Synthetic_life#Contradiction -- 126.109.230.149 ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the "Software-Based" section of the article, there is a mention of a program called "DOSE", launched in 2012, but there's no actual page for it, nor there's a source, and the incredibly vague name makes it impossible to look for it over the internet. If anyone knows what this is, can someone care to make an article, put a link or cite a reference? That is to make it useful for a regular user.
Concheria ( talk) 18:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
DOSE seems to be a Python library for a-life research, described in this paper: http://ojs.pythonpapers.org/index.php/tpp/article/view/245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.242.124 ( talk) 14:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I wonder why this one .. [2] .. never got any attention and isn't mentioned as notable neither here, nor in History_of_artificial_life. It's based on executable (& random mutating) dna +(!) neural net; + orgs have distinct freely combinable body parts (skeleton); + it takes place in a distinct world (grass, stones, orgs remainders as food and/or obstacle); senses (hear distance to other orgs and border of world) and even the possibility of communicating are involved; also mating is possible. From simple trivial scratch, organisms evolve e.g. to herbivores and carnivores (indeed chasing those herbivores) in upto hundreds of generations without dying out, but rather evolving to fitness under given circumstances. It is not deterministic (like e.g. evolve 4.0 or a cellular automaton, as random is involved), but dynamic to evolve diversity in any of its given parameters. .. Guess it got outperformed by "creatures" and it's too much old-fashion graphics at the time and simply didn't get the promotion it would have deserved and still does .. aside "framsticks" it is upto today imho the best that I found. [signed: DE:Benutzer:RoNeunzig ] -- 217.84.101.21 ( talk) 12:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Artificial life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
At present, the commonly accepted definition of life does not consider any current alife simulations or software to be alive, and they do not constitute part of the evolutionary process of any ecosystem.
I think that this could be untrue, considering that there are many genetic algorithms used in artificial life, and if artificial life allows a being to have some structure that is given to them from their creation but is also mutable and allows these beings to die, than effectively an evolutionary system is created. 73.69.254.249 ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)