The identity of working-memory and long-term memory representations follows from many lines of evidence. However, the data provided by Ruchkin et al. are hardly compelling, as they make unproved assumptions about hypothetical generators. We cite studies from our lab in which congruent slow-wave topographies were found for short-term and long-term memory tasks, strongly suggesting that both activate identical cell assemblies.

Phillips & Silverstein's ambitious link between receptor abnormalities and the symptoms of schizophrenia involves a certain amount of fuzziness: No detailed mechanism is suggested through which the proposed abnormality would lead to psychological traits. We propose that detailed simulation of brain regions, using model neural networks, can aid in understanding the relation between biological abnormality and psychological dysfunction in schizophrenia.

Ruchkin et al. ascribe a pivotal role to long-term memory representations and binding within working memory. Here we focus on the interaction of working memory and long-term memory in supporting on-line representations of experience available to guide on-going processing, and we distinguish the role of frontal-lobe systems from what the hippocampus contributes to relational long-term memory binding.

We argue that lateralities are not merely a result of phylogenetic processes but reflect probability functions that are influenced by task characteristics and extended practice. We support our argument by empirical findings on lateral biases in early infancy in general, and footedness in particular, and on hand preferences in nonhuman primates.

Charmed by Corballis's presentation, we challenge the use of mirror neurons as a supporting platform for the gestural theory of language, the link between vocalization and cerebral specialization, and the relationship between gesture and language as two separate albeit coupled systems of communication. We revive an alternative explanation of lateralization of language and handedness.

Phillips & Silverstein offer an exciting synthesis of ongoing efforts to link the clinical and cognitive manifestations of schizophrenia with cellular accounts of its pathophysiology. We applaud their efforts but wonder whether the highly inclusive notion of “context” adequately captures some important details regarding schizophrenia and NMDA/glutamate function that are suggested by work on language processing and cognitive electrophysiology.

The view that short-term memory should be conceived of as being a process based on the activation of long-term memory is inconsistent with neuropsychological evidence. Data from brain-damaged patients, showing specific patterns of impairment, are compatible with a vision of memory as a multiple-component system, whose different aspects, in neurologically unimpaired subjects, show a high degree of interaction.

As revealed by standard neuropsychological testing, patients with damage either to the frontal lobe or to the hippocampus suffer from distinct impairments of working memory. It is unclear how Ruchkin et al.'s model integrates the role played by the hippocampus.

I would like to stress that early development repeats the evolution of the species. Hence, to understand the origins of functional brain asymmetry and the underlying mechanisms involved in handedness, we have to seek information not only from what we know about human evolution, but also from how an early hand preference develops in our own species.

Phillips & Silverstein's focus on schizophrenia as a failure of “cognitive coordination” is welcome. They note that a simple hypothesis of reduced Gamma synchronisation subserving impaired coordination does not fully account for recent observations. We suggest that schizophrenia reflects a dynamic compensation to a core deficit of coordination, expressed either as hyper- or hyposynchronisation, with neurotransmitter systems and arousal as modulatory mechanisms.

The additional arguments and evidence supplied by the commentaries strengthen the hypothesis that underactivity of NMDA receptors produces impaired cognitive coordination in schizophrenia. This encourages the hope that though the distance from molecules to mind is great, it can nevertheless be traversed. We therefore predict that in this decade or the next molecular psychology will be seen to be as fundamental to our understanding of mind as molecular biology is to our understanding of life.

In their target article, Ruchkin et al. propose sustained neuronal interaction of prefrontal and posterior cortex involved in memory-storage mechanisms with respect to electrophysiological findings on the relationship of short-term and long-term memory processes. We will evaluate this claim in light of recent evidence from our laboratory on EEG coherence analysis of memory processes accompanying language comprehension.

In this commentary we argue that evolution of the human brain to host the language system was accomplished by the selective development of frontal and temporal areas in the left hemisphere. The unilateral development of Broca's and Wernicke's areas could have resulted from one or more transcription factors that have an expression pattern restricted to the left hemisphere.

The goal of our target article is to establish that electrophysiological data constrain models of short-term memory retention operations to schemes in which activated long-term memory is its representational basis. The temporary stores correspond to neural circuits involved in the perception and subsequent processing of the relevant information, and do not involve specialized neural circuits dedicated to the temporary holding of information outside of those embedded in long-term memory. The commentaries ranged from general agreement with the view that short-term memory stores correspond to activated long-term memory (e.g., Abry, Sato, Schwartz, Loevenbruck & Cathiard [Abry etal.], Cowan, Fuster, Grote, Hickok & Buchsbaum, Keenan, Hyönä & Kaakinen [Keenan et al.], Martin, Morra), to taking a definite exception to this view (e.g., Baddeley, Düzel, Logie & Della Sala, Kroger, Majerus, Van der Linden, Colette & Salmon [Majerus et al.], Vallar).

I do not disagree with the argument that human-population right-handedness may in some way be a consequence of the population-level left-lateralization of language. But I suggest that the human functional lateralization is not dependent on the structural left-right brain asymmetries to which Corballis refers.

Although gestures have surface similarities with language, there are significant organisational and neurolinguistic differences that argue against the evolutionary connection proposed by Corballis. Dominance for language and handedness may be related to a basic specialisation of the left cerebral hemisphere for target-directed behaviour and sequential processing, with the right side specialised for holistic-environmental monitoring and spatial processing.

I will present evidence that nature does not optimize in the sense of Fermat's principle of least time, contrary to what Schoemaker's unintentionally ambiguous exposition might suggest. First, Huygens' principle, an alternative nonteleological account of Snell's law, is outlined. Second, I confront Fermat's principle with a substantive conceptual problem.

Toolmaking requires motor skills that in turn require handedness, so that there is no competition between the two sides of the brain. Thus, handedness is not necessarily linked to vocalization but to the origin of causal beliefs required for making complex tools. Language may have evolved from these processes.

How should we assess the appeal of multiple scientific theories when they can all explain a particular empirical phenomenon of interest? We contrast Huygens' and Fermat's explanations of the law of refraction of light and find that neither dominates the other when considering multiple criteria for assessing the overall appeal of a scientific theory. The absence of teleology in Huygens' account is a strong plus compared to Fermat's. But Huygens' wave theory scores less well with respect to other desiderata for a scientific theory. In this case, there does not appear to be a clear winner, nor need there be one.

Byrne & Hilbert (B&H) argue that colors are reflectance properties of objects. They also claim that a necessary condition for something's being a color is that it causally explain – or be causally implicated in the explanation of – our perceptions of color. I argue that these two positions are in conflict.