>Surely the author believes that visual stimuli cause measurable changes in brain state They repeat throughout that it does > and that people can indeed remem

>Surely the author believes that visual stimuli cause measurable changes in brain state They repeat throughout that it does > and that people can indeed remember past visual stimuli. They agree also >Then how is it true that brains don’t create representations of visual stimuli and store and retrieve them? >Perhaps the author means that the brain doesn’t do these things in the same way as digital electronic computers we’re familiar The author is definitely in agreement with the second statement from what I understand. However, I think where people are getting lost is that they expect the author to resolve definitions for "cognitive"/information processing terms (because in our day and age, they are identical) when actually the author is rhetorically refusing them validity, and on purpose. Hence why in those places where the author is expected to supply an equivalently robust counter-definition they instead pose a far more general definition, such as, with respect to learning, "the brain changes". The name for this rhetorical strategy is "refusing the blackmail of the Enlightenment".