Lehar tries to build a computational theory that succeeds in offering the same computational model for both phenomenal experience and visual processing. However, the vision that Lehar has about isomorphism in Gestalttheorie as representational, is not adequate. The main limit of Lehar's model derives from this misunderstanding of the relation between phenomenal and physiological levels.

We support the goal to integrate models of culture and cognition. However, we are not convinced that the free energy principle and Thinking Through Other Minds will be useful in achieving it. There are long traditions of modeling both cultural evolution and cognition. Demonstrating that FEP or TTOM can integrate these models will require a bit more math.

Borsboom et al. convincingly argue that, from their symptom network perspective, mental disorders cannot be reduced to brain disorders. While granting that network structures exist, I respond that there is no reason to think they are the only psychiatric phenomena worth explaining. From a pluralist perspective, what is required is not a full-scale rejection of explanatory reductionism but a critical attention to the circumstances of its application.

We suggest that innatism and constructivism may differ only in their time scale.

That organisms have a concept “see” does not necessarily entail that they attribute knowledge to others or predict others' behaviors on the basis of inferred mental states. An alternative experimental protocol is proposed in which accurate prediction of the location of an experimenters' impending appearance is contingent upon subjects' attribution of knowledge to the experimenter.

In this commentary I attempt to extend the argument made by Atran and Norenzayan in two ways. First, I distinguish between the causes and the consequences of religious belief and speculate on the positive and negative consequences of religion. Second, I raise some questions about individual differences in religiosity and suggest that the origins of nonbelief are worth investigating.

In the theory outlined in the target article, an animal forages continuously, making sequential decisions in a world where the amount of food and its uncertainty are fixed, but delays are variable. These assumptions contrast with the risk-sensitive foraging theory and create a problem for comparing the predictions of this model with many laboratory experiments that do not make these assumptions.

Insofar as South Africa underwent a rapid transformation from apartheid to democracy, it may provide a unique laboratory for investigating aspects of revenge and forgiveness. Here we suggest that observations and data from South Africa are partially consistent with the hypotheses generated by MCullough and colleagues. At the same time, the rich range of revenge and forgiveness phenomena in real-life settings is likely to require explanatory concepts other than specialized modules and their computational outputs.

Although clinical studies and animal models seem to establish an important role for the sympathetic nervous system in many forms of neuropathic and inflammatory pain, there is an ongoing debate on the classification of pain syndromes with sympathetic components. The confusion originates from several sources: failure to acknowledge that the pathomechanism of chronic pain can change during the progress of the disease, which is now strongly underlined by experimental data from suitable animal models. Neuropathic pain is a vaguely defined collection of pain syndromes which includes painful conditions with diverse and largely unknown patho-mechanisms. Clinical diagnosis is difficult and well designed, placebo controlled sympathectomy is rarely performed. [blumberg et al.]

Research into entries and rules based on English is hampered by the fact that crucial factors coincide. Clahsen avoids this problem and demonstrates his claims by working on German. Seen against the background of the immense variety of the world's languages, this successful move is potentially the first of many possible ones: Several languages offer promising configurations of the factors relevant to Clahsen, and others present new challenges.

Neural models have proposed how short-term memory (STM) storage in working memory and long-term memory (LTM) storage and recall are linked and interact, but are realized by different mechanisms that obey different laws. The authors' data can be understood in the light of these models, which suggest that the authors may have gone too far in obscuring the differences between these processes.

LTP is thought to be an experimental model for studying the cellular mechanism of learning and memory. Shors & Matzel review some contradictory data concerning the linkage between LTP and memory and suggest that LTP does not underlie learning and memory. LTP is a cellular and synaptic process and cannot be a memory mechanism. In fact, it is a cellular information storage mechanism.