And a very impressive piece of work it is. But I particularly liked some of the quotes from Bill that you found, such as this one: “The biggest problem here is that neuroscientists are applying their own perceptual categories to the data they are getting about the brain, and their categories were not formed out of a theory that correctly represents what the brain does and how it does it.” But shortly after providing this quote you say:
“Neurophysiological understanding has advanced greatly since Powers (1973) proposed that the cerebellum controls configurations (perceptions of the third order), and sketched a circuit for motor control as control of the configurations of the body and its limbs. While suggestive, this chapter based on neuroscience of the late 1960s cannot be seriously presented to neuroscientists today without substantial revision”.
This seems to be inconsistent with Bill’s statement that you quote before this unless, since the publication of B:CP, neuroscientists have been basing their research on a correct theory – PCT of course – of what the brain does and how it does it.
Also, I was happy to see that Bill agrees with me (or, really, vice versa) regarding the evolutionary development of perceptual functions. It’s right there in your reference to Bill’s reply to Henry back in 2010 (t.ly/te1X). Here is where he states it explicitly:
“…species must have acquired (through random mutation and natural selection) perceptual input functions”.
And here’s a speculative story by Bill of the evolution of E. coli’s ability to perceive chemical gradients.
“Evidently, there have been changes in circumstances in the past where and when existing control processes were not able to sustain the ancestors of E. coli. Earlier organisms [ancestors of E. coli] probably had no way to detect gradients, and so had no way to approach substances or avoid them: they had to wait for them to come by or go away by diffusion or drift. But the earlier organisms, under stress, began to mutate themselves, making random changes that probably killed a lot of individuals, but often enough producing new characteristics [perceptual functions that did detect gradients] that enhanced control enough to permit survival of the species.”. (Emphasis and notes in braces are mine)
Anyway, it was a very impressive description of the neurophysiology of the cerebellum with great art work. I had no idea that you are not only a brilliant linguist and fine writer but also a skillful medical illustrator.