Abstract

Upshot: I thank Mallen for providing some historical background concerning the origin of the Typist models and for helping clarify the theoretical issues addressed and motivations for creating the models. Whilst de Zeeuw acknowledges the Typist models as a useful contribution to first-order cybernetics, he questions their relevance for second-order cybernetics. I argue that, in the context of research on human learning, de Zeeuw’s characterisation is third- rather than second-order. Stewart questions the status of the model with respect to the CTM and is concerned by our cursory treatment of “consciousness,” “semantics” and “embodiment.” We point out that the Typist models are digital models of cognitive processes rather than part of the CTM tradition. Franchi raises challenging questions about cognition and its embodiment. We acknowledge the contradiction implied when we talk about “implementing” the Typist models in a different form of processor, one that accommodates concurrency, as a processor of that kind would not be “programmable” in a conventional sense