I love how you think about things, and I’m probably going to read about frog skin cells for hours. Thanks for the rabbit hole.

A few points I’d like to make however: for the insect example in particular (and speaking of evolution and executive choice in general) it doesn’t seem to be guided by anything except fitness on an individual and species level.

All of this is, as far as we can tell, guided by emergent properties of the fundamental laws of physics (and speaking generally, the ability to both better use chemical and electromagnetic energy, and ensure offspring survive to reproduce.)

Insects aren’t as large today as they were at one time because atmospheric oxygen levels are much lower.

Insects largely absorb oxygen through their skin, and volume increases much faster than surface area as objects get larger.

This means that large insects were selected against for millions of years, as they couldn’t support their metabolic needs as efficiently as smaller insects due to reduced oxygen in the atmosphere.

There is no “it” to “figure out how to maintain itself”, anymore than the speed of light or an asteroid is an “it” with a sense of self that seeks to preserve itself.

It’s just deceptively simple rules on the smallest scales leading to larger and larger emergent properties and systems that give rise to self perpetuating systems like life.

Just like Conway’s game of life or pareidolia, it’s easy to ascribe an identity to something that has none, simply because some of its properties are reminiscent of systems we are familiar with that have some level of agency and awareness.