There's a weird underhand rhetorical trick going on in this argument. The author presents an example of cockatoos exhibiting complex goal-driven behaviour. He n

There's a weird underhand rhetorical trick going on in this argument. The author presents an example of cockatoos exhibiting complex goal-driven behaviour. He notes that it can be explained by their having a basic mental model. He then argues that there's a problem with this explanation because it doesn't apply to the behaviour of simple organisms like plants. I cannot see what the problem is at all. Some species have evolved complex neurological models to navigate the world. Other species have a somewhat less complex system of chemicals, hormones and electrical impulses. In both cases, the system has evolved to adapt to the environment. It's kind of like the author is saying "I really want there to be a Theory of Agency to explain biology. But it won't work if we just stick with natural selection. So there must be something more!"