I strongly object to the ideas in that book bring described with the terms such as "higher-level abstractions", "sensory input and action output", and "meaning

I strongly object to the ideas in that book bring described with the terms such as "higher-level abstractions", "sensory input and action output", and "meaning from global patterns". As I read it, they were precisely the notions Freeman was arguing against. There is no "input" when the history of a being, it's current sensitivities and orientation in the environment are all inseparable and mutually defining. There are no higher level abstractions, and none needed, when you're so poised in a situation with your whole brain and body that any appropriate stimulation is already meaningful. Freeman, for me turned thought upside down. I.e. we don't go, "I've detected that as being food, so I may eat it", rather we go "I've noticed I interact with all these things in a similar way (e.g. eating) that's how I recognise them as related".