The complex systems people used to discuss the problem of agents with internal models making models of other agents [1]. Similarly biologists are interested in

The complex systems people used to discuss the problem of agents with internal models making models of other agents [1]. Similarly biologists are interested in how a living thing 'organises itself' in the world, maintains its structure and how its sensing and action is coupled to the environment[2]. This sounds like a similar approach, however fuzzy. Isn't it just saying 'can we look for principles that define how living creatures should organise the effort (energy/information) it makes sense to put into "recognising/ predicting/ acting in / being in" the world?' Makes sense there could be some shared mechanisms, though I'd personally be surprised if they are universal, as differing life-forms seem suited for differing levels of environmental change. This is something lots of people have looked at (it's fun), and agree the Wired article doesn't give a clear answer. 1. Can't recall the paper, but think it was Doyne Farmer ( or Chris Langton?) arguing that if your agent had complexity N, then you should spend sqrt(N) complexity modelling another agent 2. e.g. Maturana & Varela, summary of autopoeisis here http://supergoodtech.com/tomquick/phd/autopoiesis.html http://supergoodtech.com/tomquick/phd/autopoiesis.html but I'm sure lots of other biologists have good theories