Abstract

Theory-Theory and Mental Simulation Theory have been considered alternative and exclusive positions about mindreading. By the end of the year 2000 a variety of hybrid stances started to emerge. These views did not offer any exhaustive development that explain or respond to all the theoretical inconveniencies that have aroused from TT and ST combination. In the last years, it seems investigation about TT-ST controversy has vanished; despite the fact the problems they had initially settled remain unsolved. Currently, defenders of Mental Simulation have reestablished the debate by assuming that new empirical results presented arguments favoring them. However, another interpretation may be made: it is possible to elaborate a broader theory of the controversy so as to permit an autonomous notion of naturalistic empathy which would enable to resettle the TT-ST controversy. Thus, my suggestion is, firstly, that an interdisciplinary and unified notion of empathy may be appropriate as part of mindreading mechanisms if these theories require it. These ones may be an integral part both of Mental Simulation and of Theory-Theory as well, in any case neither makes a pure version of each one. Secondly, I maintain that new empirical research not only may be considered as a tool which determines one or another position of the TT-ST debate; but it may contribute to enlarge a theory of mental attribution and to strengthen an integral notion of empathy that hold them up. Thirdly, as a consequence of the second point, the empirical research will provide better tools to distinguish between empathy and simulation so that the relationship between them may be more plainly delimited.