We can live in fantasy only if we survive in reality. Visual experience that carries information about the real world – that is, normal perception – serves that goal. Normal perception is not merely constrained hallucination, and it can usually be distinguished from internally generated images, with which it is rarely confused. Modulatory processes, such as attention, do indeed affect most levels of perceptual processing, but they do so without invalidating the transmission of the signals that they modulate.

This commentary reviews recent evidence that some hippo- campal functions do not depend on perirhinal inputs and discusses how the multiple-process model of recognition may shed interpretive light on previous reports of DNMS reacquisition deficits in pretrained subjects with hippocampal damage. Suggestions are made for determining whether nonhuman subjects solve object-recognition tasks using recollective memory or familiarity judgments.

Some implications of Tomasello et al.'s theory derive from incorporating a variant of a common assumption that humans are biologically adapted to take an intentional stance in relation to conspecifics. I argue that, rather than being cued, intentions and other dispositional states may be inferred logically from an evolved commitment to determinism and evidence of state-dependent behavior.

Glenberg offers two different accounts of embodied conceptualization. The first fails in cases where no direct bodily interaction is possible. The second fails in cases where the object in question cannot serve as a discriminative stimulus; moreover, it yields inappropriate content even in cases where it can be applied. Glenberg's disregard for the conceptual agenda set by the social world is also disquieting.

Despite the persuasiveness of Keven & Akins' (K&A) review, we argue that mentalization, or the ability to interpret the mental states of oneself and others, is required to construct the neonate mind, going far beyond sensorimotor imitation. This concept, informed by certain psychoanalytic and attachment theories, has produced a form of therapy called mentalization-based psychotherapy, which aims to improve emotional regulation. Our aim here is to shed light on a form of neonatal imitation that goes beyond sensorimotor imitation.

The target article by Cohen Kadosh & Walsh (CK&W) raises questions as to the precise nature of the notion of abstractness that is intended. We note that there are various uses of the term, and also more generally in mathematics, and suggest that abstractness is not an all-or-nothing property as the authors suggest. An alternative possibility raised by the analysis of numerical representation into automatic and intentional codes is suggested.

Ruchkin et al. use brain-activity data from healthy subjects to assess the physiological validity of a cognitive working memory model and to propose modifications. The conclusions drawn from this data are interesting and plausible, but they have limitations. Much of what is known about the neural mechanisms of working memory comes from single neuron recordings in animals, and it is currently not fully understood how these translate to scalp recordings of EEG.

I criticize Carpendale & Lewis's (C&L) attempt to produce a Wittgensteinian theory, as an alternative to work in the “theory of mind” tradition, not because I disagree with it as theory, but because Wittgenstein would be critical of any attempt to make such a use of his work. His concern is with descriptions, not theories.

This review proposes that Bloom's linkage of word meaning with more general cognitive capacities could be extended through examination of the social contexts in which children learn. Specifically, the child's developing theory of mind can be viewed as part of the process by which children learn word meanings through engagement in social interactions that facilitate both language and strategic behaviours.

We concur with the authors’ overall approach and suggest that their analysis should be taken even further. First, the same points apply to areas beyond perceptual decision making. Second, the same points apply beyond issues of optimality versus suboptimality.

One can support O'Regan & Noë's (O&N's) commitment to the active nature of vision and the importance of sensorimotor contingencies without joining them in rejecting any significant role for neurally realized visual representations in the process.

The current consensus among most researchers is that natural number is not built solely upon a foundation of mental magnitudes. On their way to the conclusion that magnitudes do not form any part of that foundation, Rips et al. pass rather quickly by theories suggesting that mental magnitudes might play some role. These theories deserve a closer look.

Pylyshyn's model of visual perception leads to problems in understanding the nature of perceptual experience. The cause of the problems is an underlying lack of clarity about the relation between the operation of the subpersonal vision module and visual perception at the level of the subject or person.

The commentaries on our target article have raised important issues about central neuroplasticity and its role in persistent pain states. Some suggest that central neuroplasticity plays nothing more than a minor role in persistent pain, while others argue that persistent pain depends critically on peripheral inputs for its maintenance. Some stress that persistent pain relies to a large extent on changes in the brain and on centrifugal inputs from brain to spinal cord, whereas others argue that it depends on alterations in inhibitory as well as excitatory systems. We attempt to address each of the commentators' points, while defending our position that central neuroplasticity is critical to pathological persistent pain states.

Adaptationist explanations for well-known phenomena are of limited value to psychological science. To be truly useful, evolutionary psychological research programs must produce novel discoveries about contemporary cognitive and behavioral processes. The concept of special design is especially useful. Even if special design cannot be convincingly demonstrated, rigorous attempts to meet this evidentiary standard can produce novel scientific contributions.

We outline three possible shortcomings of the SIMS model and specify these by applying the model to autism. First, the SIMS model assigns a causal role to brain processes, thereby excluding individual and situational factors. Second, there is no room for subjective and high-level conceptual processes in the model. Third, disentangling the different stages in the model is very difficult.

Distancing and then embracing constitutes a useful way of thinking about the paradox of aesthetic pleasure. However, the model does not account for live theatre. When live actors perform behaviors perceptually close to real life and possibly really experienced by the actors, audiences may experience autonomic reactions, with less distance, or may have to distance post-experiencing/embracing their emotions.