Davey presents expectancy bias as an alternative explanation for preparedness effects in conditioning; this commentary mentions some of the problems in interpreting UCS expectancy designs vis-à-vis conditioning. A further complication is that other CS characteristics also influence conditioning: A recent experiment provided support for Rescorla and Wagner's (1972) hypothesis that the amount of conditioning is smaller when the CS and UCS elicit similarly valenced initial affective responses (as with a fear-relevant CS and shock UCS). Finally, different physiological systems measure different aspects of the conditioning process, a further consideration in interpreting the results of selective association studies.

P/A (Block's phenomenal/access) confounds a logical distinction with an empirical claim. Success of P/A in its logical role has almost no bearing on its plausibility as an empirical thesis (i.e., that two kinds of consciousness exist). The advantage of P/A over a single-consciousness assumption is unclear, but one of Block's analogies for P (liquid in a hydraulic computer) may be used to clarify the notion of consciousness as cognitive “hardware.”

It is argued that to have an experience is to be in a phenomenal state with A-conscious content. Perceptual contents are always both P-conscious and A-conscious.

The nonrandom distribution of fears is not as clearly related to phylogenetically survival relevance as preparedness theory seems to imply. Although delayed extinction reflects some of the best human evidence for preparedness, even this phenomenon is not as robust as it once seemed to be. Apart from the evidence reviewed by Davey, recent studies from our laboratory provide further evidence for an expectancy bias model of selective associations.

The embodied AI paradigm represents a distinct shift toward an ecological perspective on intelligent behavior. I outline how Ballard et al. have made a promising advance in expanding the seat of intelligence to include sensory and motor systems, but they have not gone far enough. Sustained growth toward truly generalizable accounts of intelligent systems will also require expanding the locus of intelligence to include the environmental structure participating in intelligent behavior.

Ballard et al. neatly demonstrate the tradeoff between memory and externalised serial deictic functions which help the agent achieve economy. However, the target article represents an implementation which does not seem to reveal the hidden level of cognitive control enabling tasks, contexts, and the agent's own needs to specify and recruit information from the visual layout.

States of being conscious (S) can be defined on the basis of temporal information processing. A high-frequency mechanism provides atemporal system states with periods of approximately 30 msec to implement the functional connection of distributed activities allowing the construction of primordial events; a low frequency mechanism characterized by automatic temporal integration sets up temporal windows with approximately 3 seconds duration. This integration mechanism can be used to define S. P-consciousness and A-consciousness as conceived of by Block can be mapped onto these neuronal mechanisms.

A series of arguments are presented by De Jong & Merckelbach which suggest that biological preparedness has been received significantly less critically than it should have been. I agree fully with their assessment. Cuthbert raises four questions about the applicability of the expectancy bias hypothesis to selective associations in human conditioning. This response argues that none of these four examples is necessarily problematic for the hypothesis.

The target article makes a compelling case for the idea that agents rely on the world for external memory in fast-paced perceptual tasks. As I argue, however, agents also rely on the external environment for computational hardware that helps to keep cognitive computations tractable. Hence the external world provides not only memory for computations involving perceptual system actions, but it provides domain-level actions that figure in cognitive computations as well.

An intertemporal bargaining model of commitment does not entail the interaction of parts within the person as Rachlin claims, and is needed to explain properties of “ordinary” self-control that his molar generalization model does not predict.

Even if A-consciousness and P-consciousness were conceptually distinct, it is no fallacy for researchers relying on a suitable theory to infer one from the other. But P-consciousness conceptually implies A-consciousness – unless one or the other is mere ersatz consciousness. And we can best explain mental states' being conscious, in any intuitively natural sense, by appeal to higher-order thoughts.

Traditional cognitivism treats a situated agent's point of view in terms of deficit egocentrism. Can Ballard et al.'s framework remedy this characterization? And will its fusion of computational and enactivist explanations change assumptions about what cognition is? “Yes” is suggested by considering human infants' developing spatial knowledge, but further questions are raised by analysis of their robot counterparts.

The explanatory gap refers to the lack of concepts for understanding “how it is that . . . a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue.” By assuming that there are colours in the outside world, Block needlessly widens this gap and Lycan and Kitcher simply fail to see the gap. When such assumptions are abandoned, an unnecessary and incomprehensible constraint disappears. It then becomes clear that the brain can use its own neural language for representing aspects of the outside world. While this may not close the gap, it becomes clearer where we need new concepts.

Rachlin's “teleological behaviorism” is a dubious melange. Of Aristotle's four basic “causes” – formal, efficient, material, and final – the scientists and philosophers of the modern era expelled the last, or teleology, from science. Adaptionist evolutionary biologists now sometimes sanction talk of the function or purpose of organisms' structures and behavioral repertoires as a first step because they believe evolution through natural selection makes natural organisms look as if they are purposively designed. But, as Aristotle himself insisted, humans are as much artificial as natural and so teleology is much less appropriate. To the degree that Rachlin's view makes sense it seems to amount to Daniel Dennett's intentional stance or the folk psychology talk of our everyday narrations of ourselves and others.

Evolutionary pressure selects for the most efficient way of information processing by the brain. This is achieved by focussing neuronal processing onto essential environmental objects, by using focussing devices as pointers to different objects rather than reestablishing new representations, and by using external storage bound to internal representations by pointers. Would external storage increase the capacity of cognitive processing?

The distinction between phenomenal (P) and access (A) consciousness arises from the battle between biological and computational approaches to the mind. If P = A, the computationalists are right; but if not, the biological nature of P yields its scientific nature.

In response to Ainslie & Gault: The value of a temporally extended behavioral pattern depends on relationships inherent in the pattern itself. It is not possible to express that value as the simple sum of the discounted present values of the pattern's component acts.

In response to Leiber: Teleological behaviorism may be deemed unscientific because it has not yet succeeded to the required degree in predicting and controlling the highly complex patterns of human behavior that comprise our mental lives. However teleological behaviorism is not unscientific because it is teleological or “noncausal;” nor is teleological behaviorism unscientific because it is not reducible to neurophysiology. Nothing in principle bars the development of a teleological science of the mind.

Eye movements play a variety of roles in perception, cognition, and communication. The roles are revealed by the duration of fixations reflecting the quality of processing in the first line. We describe possible roles of eye fixations in different temporal diapasons. These forms of processing may be specific to sensorimotor coordinations. Any generalization to other domains should be cautious.

What is encoded in working memory may be a content-addressable pointer, but a critical portion of the information that is addressed includes the motor information to achieve deictic reference in the environment. Additionally, the same strategy that is used to access environment information just in time for its use may also be used to access long-term memory via the pre-frontal cortex.

This commentary raises three questions about the target article: What are pointers or deictic devices? Why insist on deictic codes for cognition rather than deixis simpliciter? And in what sense is cognition embodied, on this view?