Re: "Your brain does not process information and it is not a computer."
Agreed with Cutter, essentially. The writer does not offer up his own explanation as to, say, where memory may be stored. And, he is not a neuroscientist, but a psychologist. Different fields, though related?
The IP perspective requires the player to formulate an estimate of various initial conditions of the ball’s flight – the force of the impact, the angle of the trajectory, that kind of thing – then to create and analyse an internal model of the path along which the ball will likely move, then to use that model to guide and adjust motor movements continuously in time in order to intercept the ball.
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.
Don't humans essentially do what is indicated in the first bit, at least on a subconscious level, based on the present sensory input? (e.g. sound of the bat cracking against the ball, visual flight path of the ball, fuzzy estimation)
Fortunately, because the IP metaphor is not even slightly valid,
Why...? What does the author have to offer?
...unnecessary intellectual baggage
Really? Stoop to this?
I can understand what the author is stating about each individuals brain having its own unique arrangement of (trillions of) neurons based on life experiences and genetics, but there has to be some sort of "basic model" from which those individualistic models branch, and to suggest nothing terribly substantive in place of trouncing established metaphor is, at best, misguided.
Dan =0) (Disclaimer: Not a neuroscientist or doctor, though I play one on stage.)