We would agree that, because the organism is ‘coupled with’ the environment, there is no need to posit within the organism a symbolic representation and computations thereon, and for everything that such notions aim to explain control of perceptual input is sufficient and necessary explanation. The organism acts as if internally-constructed perceptions are in the environment, but (in a stock example) the taste of lemonade is not in the environment. Arguably ‘information in the environment’ is the basis for our constructing that taste perception, but only if we reify perceptions constructed in chemistry and physics, and even then that is at a scale and granularity so far removed from the taste perception that we can’t help noticing that the notion of information in the environment is pretty near vacuous. (I think Vlatko Vedral would say completely vacuous.)
To communicate PCT and help people reorganize their understandings we have to disturb some of their controlled variables. It behooves us to do so gently, so their control systems do not perceive an attack and control to avoid us, and it is essential that we first assume the point of view of the organism. It is only from within their current conceptual convictions that a way to PCT can become evident to them. If with temporary willing suspension of disbelief we join them arguendo, recognizing contradictions and other problems from their point of view can open a way to PCT. For example, the popularity of Norman’s work provides a common basis on which this can happen. Just saying oh he’s wrong here, and here, and there raises the bar and conflicts with the purpose of teaching and promoting PCT.