For at least two reasons the likelihood of smart mechanisms in perception should be considerable. One is that the basic tasks of perception, and the information available for them, are stable properties of the organisms and the environment, respectively. It therefore seems appropriate that they have been solved through "invention" (evolution) of smart mechanisms. Many of the tasks require more or less continuous operation, which also favors smart solutions. (Runeson, 1977, p. 174).I don't get this. So, let's say that perception is for gathering information about the stable properties of organisms and the environment. (I think this is what Runeson means, but there appears to be some typo or something in the second sentence.) Why does that make smart mechanisms more likely? And let it be the case that many tasks require more or less continuous operation. Why does this make smart mechanisms more likely? I don't get the connections between these features of tasks and the nature of the mechanisms. It just seems like a non sequiter to me. Why are neural circuits any less probable a mechanism for handling this?
Runeson, S. (1977). "On the Possibility of 'Smart' Mechanisms" Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 172-9.