Przemysław Nowakowski

[Does my body embody cognition?] The works published in this section address the question of embodied cognition in an inspiring manner. In her article written ten years ago, Natika Newton deals with the notion of the relation between mental representation and embodiment. Frederique de Vignemont in his text written five years prior begins a strictly philosophical debate regarding the sense of ownership of one’s own body. Claire Petitmengin’s article is a kind of counterpoint to the previous texts. She attempts to explain and demonstrate the profound dimension of experience which she characterizes as affective, transmodal and gestural.

According to Peter Halligan, […] it is important to consider that the experience of our body is largely the product of a continuously updated „phantom” generated by the brain.. Next, he adds: I will argue that the prevalent common sense assumption of phantom experience as pathological is wrongheaded and largely based on a long-standing and pernicious folk assumption that the physical body is necessary for experience of a body..These two remarks can serve as a backdrop for a discussion of the problem of bodily self-consciousness presented in the article. If experiencing a phantom of an amputated limb is indeed not pathological, and if normal bodily experience is de facto based on the body phantom constructed by the brain, then our conception of this very phantom should prove relevant when trying to explain bodily self-consciousness.

The works published in this section address the question of embodied cognition in an inspiring manner. In her article written ten years ago, Natika Newton deals with the notion of the relation between mental representation and embodiment. Frederique de Vignemont in his text written five years prior begins a strictly philosophical debate regarding the sense of ownership of one’s own body. Claire Petitmengin’s article is a kind of counterpoint to the previous texts. She attempts to explain and demonstrate the profound dimension of experience which she characterizes as affective, transmodal and gestural

The focus of this special issue of Theory & Psychology is on explanatory mechanisms in psychology, especially on problems of particular prominence for psychological science such as theoretical integration and unification. Proponents of the framework of mechanistic explanation claim, in short, that satisfactory explanations in psychology and related fields are causal. They stress the importance of explaining phenomena by describing mechanisms that are responsible for them, in particular by elucidating how the organization of component parts and operations in mechanisms gives rise to phenomena in certain conditions. We hope for cross-pollination between philosophical approaches to explanation and experimental psychology, which could offer methodological guidance, in particular where mechanism discovery and theoretical integration are at issue. Contributions in this issue pertain to theoretical integration and unification of psychology as well as the growing importance of causal mechanistic explanations in psychological science.