The Edge has a transcript of a talk he gave.

I've heard a few people sell embodiment philosophy as the next big thing, but I find it incredibly frustrating. Every essay I've read on it has, like this, contained a few soundbites that sound quite reasonable, and then completely fail to specify any concrete claim. Every time he seems to be about to say something, he retreats into another analogy.

I can't decide if I'm missing something, or if the entire thing is verbal slush.

I don’t think this embodiment philosophy is something I’ve encountered before. I think it is a bit silly though. What is this rubbish about seeing being outside of us?

if seeing, hearing, thinking, and feeling, isn't something going on inside of you

I think the fact that sensation can be stimulated by shocking the brain with electricity is pretty good evidence that seeing occurs inside us.

They ask, how does the picture affect us and give rise to an experience in our heads? Instead, what they should ask is how do we achieve a kind of access to Hillary, to properties of Hillary, such as her visual appearance, by exploration of something which is not Hillary, namely, a picture?

I found this discussion of Hilary’s picture excruciating. Yes, we know what a picture is. We don’t need three paragraphs of explanation.

I’ve read about two portions of this piece without learning anything. I’m sick of it. I’ll tentatively suggest that the problem is that there are two different ways in which a person might be said to be embodied in their environment. There’s a behavioural, functional time embodiment. That’s the dance. You receive an input observation and you respond with an action. This kind of interaction with the environment is undisputed. Then, there is the embodiment of consciousness. Which, as far as I’ve read, they give me to reason whatsoever to believe.

I don't much disagree, but it would be nice to hear someone properly defend it.

I found a nice comment on embodiment philosophy in general at this blog.