Well the body has properties which enable it to formulate concepts which begin simply as motor techniques. It is unlikely that servos have the right properties,

Well the body has properties which enable it to formulate concepts which begin simply as motor techniques. It is unlikely that servos have the right properties, but it's an open question. I strongly suspect the body's ability to organize itself at the cellur-to-organ level over time, ie., to grow, is an essential component of how we develop & deploy novel motor techniques. It is these techniques which we use to resolve the ambiguity inherent within any system of measurement -- we, of course, learn to see -- but i think "learn" here is really a complex form of motor control which ends up structruing our perception and then reflexivily, we build on that to develop more motor techniques. We learn to see in the sense that we first learn to move, then we see better, and we cycle until we're building electron microscopes. Explicit cognition is really just a book-keeping/accounting system to tidy up this process. In modelling only this, we're relying on "doing all the hardwork" for machines. Intelligence isnt what cognition does when it tidy's up your concepts, its the very having of those concepts. Cognition is a big, largely neurotic unself-aware misdirection. It's what academics think is important -- failing to notice they have any body at all. They only got their cherished abstractions by first moving their meat -- and whilst that can be dropped for the most pure and formal of ideas (eg., arithmetic) -- it cannot be dropped for discovery as such.