| The level of understanding of the problem that this paper expresses is extraordianry in my reading of this field --- it's a genuinely amazing synthesis. > How could the common-sense background knowledge needed for dynamic world model synthesis be represented, even in principle? Modern game engines may provide important clues. This has often been my starting point in modelling the difference between a model-of-pixels vs. a world model. Any given video game session can be "replayed" by a model of its pixels: but you cannot play the game with such a model. It does not represent the causal laws of the game. Even if you had all possible games you could not resolve between player-caused and world-caused frames. > A key question is how to model this capability. How do minds craft bespoke world models on the fly, drawing in just enough of our knowledge about the world to answer the questions of interest? This requires a body: the relevant information missing is causal, and the body resolves P(A|B) and P(A|B->A) by making bodily actions interpreted as necessarily causal. In the case of video games, since we hold the controller, we resolve P(EnemyDead|EnemyHit) vs. P(EnemyDead| (ButtonPress ->) EnemyHit -> EnemyDead) |