Good point, dear Ms G Smith! I avoided to upset the natural scientists by invoking the notion of socially constructed perception of the body, which might conduct to the idea of a conformist perception, I mean conform with the collective perception of the thing observed. Limitations of the perception are self-imposed as a result of this conformism.

Perception is not an objective mirror, it is a flexible one. We learn how to perceive ourselves. You brought to the table the discussion concerning anorexia and the destructive behaviour associated with it, which might be more complex and demand more than just a deep understanding of the notion of body ownership. I was thinking about boys behaviour in relation to their body look and the influence of the TV-advertising on cosmetic products for men.

For just some decades ago, only girls looked in the mirror 'all day long'. Only girls had million of small bottles and boxes on their make-up table. Now-a-days very young boys are interested in body lotions and hair gel and hand creams. While girls are encouraged to play with mechanical tools instead of dolls and so on. Nobody would say today that it is not 'conform' with the notion of masculinity to use expensive perfumes and even face lifting creams. Just the opposite might be true!

Thinking one more time, I understand however that the discovery of the 'rubber hand' opens for a even broader scope of the body ownership, broader than gender, broader than healthy appearance and so on...

We had an idea about the body ownership as being strictly determined. I look in the mirror and I see myself/my body. Now according to this study, it might be possible to consider that body ownership is an open domain. I could include a rubber hand, why not continue and include more and more, all the objects in the room for instance. Then I will not be able to say I am in the room, because I am the room. It is very interesting from my perspective of novice to discover that natural science has finally opened new doors and made possible to achieve a new understanding of the world. This flexibility or relativity is absolutely fascinating!

It is also very close to what Chopra, on the limit between science and philosophy, was trying to prove about self-consciousness. All these entrancing words like 'you are not in the universe, the universe is in you' seemed to be only a way to stimulate the mood before a yoga meditation, but now it looks like it might be true or at least it can not be completely excluded. Where does a 'flexible' body end ?

I think there are a lot of other possibilities available, along "embodied cognition" or "extended mind" theoretical lines (to name just a couple), before mind-body relationships rule out the reality of the self or the truth value of self-perceptions. I don't know the correct position to take, but "self" is a concept difficult to define, let alone to enter it in any logical formalism that might provide a verdict about its reality or its illusory status. For one thing, "perception" is a concept whose definition seems to beg for a "self" to do the "perceiving."

It is most definitely a matter of perceived conceptualization. Neuroscientific research on enhanced embodiment might suggest, just as some of you states, that the "rubber hand" would be incorporated into your cognitional body scheme. But the same goes for e.g. a fork, a tennis racket and even – as Emanuela speculates – embodiment of space. I'd wish I could find the direct reference, but some months ago I listened to an interview with an author of a book about this exact subject. They had done research which proved just how, in relation to neural activity, some athletes had and extended feel of embodiment, when practicing their discipline, just like former examples like "the rubber hand" or a "phantom limb". In the opposite direction, the same kind of studies are made with meditating monks. If something is practiced, exposed to, believed, integrated enough, it seems to manifest in neural activity.

We might discuss mind and body as a duality, but essentially - I believe – that would reach a dead end. Rather, we might discuss mind and body as a unity, to sustain a dynamic theory. The concepts that governs research matters to how we perceive our self. And that IS most definitely the new study of subjectivity.

I've read some works from the Ehrsson group earlier, but that isn't it. Those I heard of took it a step further from our actual body, talking about stuff like "peripheral space", the sense of things not in, as we understand it, direct contact with the body, but still to have good reason to be theorized as part af functional cognitive bodily schemes.

The concept seems fairly logic though, once some intuitive illogicalities passed. "Sense of being watched", "having a feel of the weight of an object, the solidity of something", etc; how our expectations/knowledge of things affect our experience and actions in space.

Emanuelas suggestion "why not continue and include more and more, all the objects in the room for instance. Then I will not be able to say I am in the room, because I am the room" is more evident, than it might seem with an commonly western intuition. Such a neural, or even cognitive, transformation might not happen over night though, but seems to be manifested by continous integration of thought, stimulation and experience.

The concept of neuroplasticity, as Sandra mentions, is a good example of how ideas about how cognitive functions are integrated with physical structures. The structures of the brain seems to be extremely adaptable.

(I'll try and find the references.... I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in "The brain Science podcast" with Ginger Campbell (www.brainsciencepodcast.com) . But there's so many episodes. Though, it might be from the "Body maps" episode 21 or "Embodied intelligence" episode 25. It's not directly related, but I would aslo like to suggest, i relation to this topic, episode 58 with Alva Noë. His ideas is really attractive, to my "sense" of things).

a sidenote:

I often find my self mesmerized on the concept of "air". Physical sciences tells us much and more about the world is and how it could be understood. But most of these things are so "far away", so distant from direct experience, that they seem almost absurd. Air, though, is absolutely present, all the time. Mainly from the knowledge, that it keeps my alive. It is always present. And yet, I can't see it. It never becomes visible to my eye. I can feel it though. I can see things moving like it was magic, but i KNOW, that it is air, moving the objects.... This knowledge or sense of air must of course also affect my experience of the world. If one imagines to live in a early argiculture it would not seem illogical to believe that such a storm must be the work of some higher "god-like" force. They simply had no other way of understanding. Just as natives, from the colonization era, must have feared those strange looking people with stick that kills just by pointing at someone!

Well, even though I to some extend do know how "air" exists, it still mesmerizes me. Though, KNOWING, that air has such physical properties, why would "thoughts" not have such physical properties, it's just that we do not yet have any theories which is considered applicable to our contemporary paradigme of science.

I am puzzled about the question and looking at it from a different angle...

Isn't our interpretation of the world a concept of ourselves? What about the young generation growing up with mobile devices, facebook and other online communities? Don't they have a different understanding of themselves? What about people experiencing depression or burn-out?

What about people facing anorexia/bulimia? Isn't their problem that they have an unhealthy understanding of their body? But this is a thing happening in their mind...

Good point, dear Ms G Smith! I avoided to upset the natural scientists by invoking the notion of socially constructed perception of the body, which might conduct to the idea of a conformist perception, I mean conform with the collective perception of the thing observed. Limitations of the perception are self-imposed as a result of this conformism.

Perception is not an objective mirror, it is a flexible one. We learn how to perceive ourselves. You brought to the table the discussion concerning anorexia and the destructive behaviour associated with it, which might be more complex and demand more than just a deep understanding of the notion of body ownership. I was thinking about boys behaviour in relation to their body look and the influence of the TV-advertising on cosmetic products for men.

For just some decades ago, only girls looked in the mirror 'all day long'. Only girls had million of small bottles and boxes on their make-up table. Now-a-days very young boys are interested in body lotions and hair gel and hand creams. While girls are encouraged to play with mechanical tools instead of dolls and so on. Nobody would say today that it is not 'conform' with the notion of masculinity to use expensive perfumes and even face lifting creams. Just the opposite might be true!

Thinking one more time, I understand however that the discovery of the 'rubber hand' opens for a even broader scope of the body ownership, broader than gender, broader than healthy appearance and so on...

Fealing of body is from part ilussion ,brain try allwayes put together sensory data to get some meaningfull body image in this proces is large part of data from senses changed or even erase if not fit the whole image. If you learn how this proces works you can change or even deconstruct and construct body images for this is needed only some multisensory inegration rules but porblem is this woek only for human like bodyes for other bodyes you must first change your concept of self normaly is realively hard and everithing not fit in is erased if you change the concept is no longer any borders to body ownershlip you can have feealing and body ownership of very wired things like animals or even fire or watter

(in lucid dreams but mechanism is the same ) . In transe state is posible deconstruct image of physical body by lowering sensory imputs and construct new one or many of them .Like someone write heare about feealing of space,room is also posibble i hear about this from my frends and from my experince i expand my body to about half a room

but this is not neterly the same becouse there is still be body only with different shape .

Body ownership or expand of normals borders of body also allows strongest fealing/empathy of all within new borders.

"Body ownership or expand of normals borders of body also allows strongest fealing/empathy of all within new borders."

Because I am a legal scientist and not a neuroscientist, (even if some interest in the field of exact/natural science can be revealed by my choice of studying mathematics in high school and one year in college) some of my colleagues could become maybe a bit intrigued about my actual purpose in life and in science :)-

But, now thanks to you, I can disclose my motivation to know more about free will, body ownership, decision making as a mental process, compliance with rules (written or unwritten) and so on. First I have been interested in behaviourism, but it does not fit me. I need more evidence than just intuitive observations followed by validation tricks. The ultimate decision maker is the brain for all of us and despite this fact, we still know so little about this wonderful instrument.

Even if maybe it is not obvious for all of you, the way the law is made is only partially and indirectly related to the political power, the legislative and judicial and administrative. We are no tabula rasa at the moment of our birth, we have some inborn knowledge and the feature of being empathic can be also inborn and enhanced by education. This is for you to prove and research about.

If this is true, that we are empathic creatures, it means that we shall build another type of law making/enforcement, based on positive values and not on sanctions, on negative enforcement. Encouraging compliance by threatening is not a good idea and all dog owners know it. We presume that people will break the law and therefore we must ensure a system based on effective sanction. But what if, the presumption is false? What if we have formulated the problem in a deleterious manner for decades and centuries? The current situation de facto is only the consequence of a long series of wrong or maybe less inspired assumptions.

Many of the social constructions are based on collective illusions, some of them are maybe necessary, because nothing says that illusions are per se harmful. But they may have harmful consequences.

"Why is it that very few neuroscientists even glance at the history of Helen Keller?"

Dear John, thank you for your comment, though I am afraid that I will not be able to answer your question without changing the perspective, since I am not a neuroscientist myself. I can only imagine why many things, which we can accept intuitively are not yet object to scientific research.

To start with my own domain, legal science, we are aware that we must support always the affirmations and claims that we make. Facts must be supported by evidence and legal arguments by law. Of course that my 6th sense can give me some intuitive picture of the possible outcome or of other aspects. However knowing that I can't use 6th sense as an argument, I will not even consider to do it.

This is known as: one can not change the rules of the game, while playing it. In relation to other sciences, it must be something similar. Let's take physics. The scientist must have been intuitively aware of many of the physical phenomena, but they could not investigate them, until the time was ripe and the theoretical and observation instruments to perform studies were available.

Therefore I am optimistic, that the phenomena described by you above will be subject to serious investigation, one day when the scientists will have enough data and find the appropriate theoretical approach to study them. Concerning the philosophical point of view, I agree with Zizek, who said that philosophers, including himself obviously, can only formulate the relevant questions, but they can not answer them. They give answers to the question "what" and maybe "why", but not to question "how" to study.