By assuming that conscious states are the only constructs entitled to bear a cognitive status, while denying this status both to the learning processes and to their nonconscious outcomes, the SOC view leaves consciousness alone as the single tool to explain itself. This does not endow consciousness with any self-organizing properties, but rather, draws a deliberately shallow outline of cognition.

Pylyshyn raises hot topics like the number and kinds of pictorialist theories there are and their explanatory power. Pylyshyn states that pictorialists have only two possibilities – they can posit either “only functional” images or “really spatial” images – and that neither of these possibilities is convincing or sufficient in explanatory power for empirical and theoretical reasons. Is pictorialism, in principle, untenable?

Carruthers suggests that natural language, in the form of inner speech, may be the vehicle of conscious propositional thought, but he argues that its fundamental cognitive role is as the medium of cross-modular thinking, both conscious and nonconscious. I argue that there is no evidence for nonconscious cross-modular thinking and that the most plausible view is that cross-modular thinking, like conscious propositional thinking, occurs only in inner speech.

Aspects of Northoff's argument lend themselves to the ongoing investigation of localizing the self in the brain. Recent data from the fields of neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience provide evidence that the right hemisphere is a candidate for localization of self. The data on catatonia further that proposition and add insight into the continuing investigation of self in the brain across sensory and motor domains.

Recent neural models clarify many properties of mental imagery as part of the process whereby bottom-up visual information is influenced by top-down expectations, and how these expectations control visual attention. Volitional signals can transform modulatory top-down signals into supra-threshold imagery. Visual hallucinations can occur when the normal control of these volitional signals is lost.

No adequate evidence exists for the evolution of facial pain expression and detection mechanisms, as opposed to social-learning processes. Although brain affective/emotional processes, and resulting whole body action patterns, have surely evolved, we should also aspire to monitor human suffering by direct neural measures rather than by more indirect indices.

Preston & de Waal minimized differences among constructs such as empathy, sympathy, and personal distress. However, such distinctions have been shown to relate differently to altruistic behavior. Moreover, although the authors discussed the role of regulation in empathy, they did not consider the possibility that sometimes empathy is not well-regulated and likely leads to personal distress rather than sympathy.

Given the complexity and generalizability of motor skills, it is difficult to account for learning in this area without incorporating the concept of unconscious abstraction. A model based solely on association does not seem to account for data in this domain; specifically, instances that require learners to execute a practiced motor skill in a novel situation.

Carruthers labels as “too strong” the thesis that language is necessary for all conceptual thought. Languageless creatures certainly do think, but when we get clear about what is meant by “conceptual thought,” it appears doubtful that conceptual thought is possible without language.

Georg Northoff encounters a problem regarding the logical status of “catatonia.” Whereas Parkinson's disease (PD) is a disease on the basis of Virchowian criteria, catatonia is not. PD is associated with pathognomonic neurological lesions. Catatonia does not require any such association. The diagnosis is rendered using social criteria rather than neuropathological ones. Therefore, Northoff is not comparing two disease states at all.

Within the perception-action framework, the underlying mechanisms of empathy and its related processes of moral behavior need to be investigated. fMRI studies have shown different frontal cortex activation patterns during automatic processing and judgment tasks when stimuli have moral content. Clinical neuropsychological studies reveal different patterns of empathic alterations after dorsolateral versus orbital frontal cortex damage, related to deficient cognitive and emotional processing. These processing streams represent different neural levels and mechanisms underlying empathy.

An automated system for monitoring facial expressions could increase the reliability, sensitivity, and precision of the research on the relationship between facial signs and experiences of pain, and it could lead to new insights and diagnostic methods. This commentary examines whether the research on facial expression of pain, as reported by Williams, provides a sufficient basis for machine understanding of pain-associated facial expressions.

The target article suggests that the neurological disorders catatonia and Parkinson's disease share similar behavioral features that nevertheless reflect different forms of abnormal information processing. However, emerging research on Parkinson's disease and related age-dependent neurodegenerative disorders suggests that no simplistic notions about processing will be correct for all stages of the disease.

I support Pylyshyn's skepticism that visual imagery reflects a re-activation of the spatial layout of active neurons embedded within a topographical cortical map of visual space. The pickup of visual information via successive eye movements presents one problem and the two visual systems model poses another difficulty.

Four extensions of Carruthers’ arguments are given. (1) Specifics of the Vygotskyan tradition can enhance his claims. (2) Linguistic relativity might be seen as variation in how logical form (LF) and phonetic form (PF)serve working memory. (3) Language aids intermodular thinking because it makes representations maximally visible. (4) Language for intermodular thinking is not hardwired but opportunistic.

Parsimony and simplicity in cognition theory are not achieved by excluding either the “cognitive unconscious” or consciousness from theoretical modeling, but rather, by eliminating redundant constructs independent of their location on the conscious-unconscious axis. Hence, Perruchet & Vinter's (P&V's) case against the “cognitive unconscious” does not work as an argument for consciousness, but rather as a rejection of the redundant background computational processes postulated in traditional cognition theory.

A monolithic model that ignores functional and topographic distinctions among its components has dominated clinical accounts of pain behavior. This model contributes to a pretence of knowledge that affects the treatment of sufferers. This commentary addresses the role of the target article in correcting knowledge-pretence and introduces a complementary caveat about evolutionary psychology concepts.

Perruchet & Vinter (P&V) claim that all mental representations are conscious and that the cognitive unconscious does not exist. Unfortunately, support for these claims is garnered illicitly, by defining the terms representation and computation in a way that is unduly restrictive and misleading. In addition, their proposals fail to engage adequately with critically important evidence and theory from neuropsychology concerning consciousness and cognition.

Carruthers’ thesis is undermined on the one hand by examples of integration of output from domain-specific modules that are independent of language, and on the other hand by examples of linguistically represented thoughts that are unable to integrate different domain-specific knowledge into a coherent whole. I propose a more traditional role for language in thought as providing the basis for the cultural development and transmission of domain-general abstract knowledge and reasoning skills.

Empathy is the phenomenal experience of mirroring ourselves into others. It can be explained in terms of simulations of actions, sensations, and emotions which constitute a shared manifold for intersubjectivity. Simulation, in turn, can be sustained at the subpersonal level by a series of neural mirror matching systems.