I find this an amusingly cognitive view. I think the commentators do a pretty good job of dealing with the main issues. Yes, you could frame everything as 'prediction' but basically all you are doing is conflating 'prediction' with 'agency with a time delay.' This really doesn't solve any problems. At what timescale you want to draw the line between prediction and agency for closed loop systems is an open question. I think one of the key concepts that the author fails to address is that the fundamental problem the nervous system addresses is coordination of otherwise isolated muscles, organs etc. While we may remain mystified about the function of the mind, we do know that at some level the nervous system is really about control and synchronization. There are astoundingly good models (now with biological correlates!) of motor control loops that are just classic PID controllers. While the predictive perspective can be useful in some cases it is just a perspective and an interpretation. If you want to get to the heart of the matter you need math, and this paper is lacking on the math. To paraphrase: words are wind, math is truth.