> Looks like a terminological difference? Yes. Another very clear example is where he states: >> That is all well and good if we functioned as computers do, b

> Looks like a terminological difference? Yes. Another very clear example is where he states: >> That is all well and good if we functioned as computers do, but McBeath and his colleagues gave a simpler account: to catch the ball, the player simply needs to keep moving in a way that keeps the ball in a constant visual relationship with respect to home plate and the surrounding scenery (technically, in a ‘linear optical trajectory’). This might sound complicated, but it is actually incredibly simple, and completely free of computations, representations and algorithms. It boggles my mind that the author doesn't realize that "keeping the ball in a linear optical trajectory" is in fact, canonically, an algorithm. As a matter of fact, it's pretty much exactly the algorithm that computers on (earlier model) antiaircraft missiles use to collide with their targets. The author exhibits similarly muddled thoughts about "memories". The dollar bill drawing exercise shows nothing except that our brains (rather obviously) employ lossy techniques when storing information. By default, our brains don't remember "irrelevant" details like all the scrollwork on the bill. We remember "1", George Washington, and perhaps a couple other details. However, our brains must be able to correctly retrieve information at times, or I would have been unable to type this message...