Well, there are different schools of thinking about it. I think embodied cognition seems so fundamentally radically different from the standard “We are computers that happen to be contained in annoyingly poor meat bodies” – that I think a lot of Neuroscience and AI just let the embodied cognition people do their own things; probably considering them more Lexographers or Linguists rather than coming up with a radically practical way of conceiving “what is it to be a person?”
Not working in any of these fields, I honestly don’t know.
But I think there should be a heated debate over the issue; and looking through Google Scholar and some of the open access science journals, there’s surprisingly little; For me, it was a shock to finally find a way of thinking that fit how I already thought about the nature of things. I never liked the brains-in-vats idea; I think if my cognition were to be transferred to a computer, of course I’d still be “me” – but the new set of tools available would change the way I think on a fundamental level; and the absence of ears, eyes, nose, touch and nervous system working on a particular set of timings would cause a lot of that way of thinking to start to taper off; and I would begin to conceptualize in a new way.