AnkA SlAnA Ozimič, TOmA STrle / AT The edge Of UnderSTAnding 9 Anka Slana Ozimič, Toma Strle Editorial At the Edge of Understanding: A Dialogue on Gaps in Cognitive Science The central goal of cognitive science is to understand the mind and mental proces- ses, such as perception, experience, thought, memory, emotion, and communicati- on. Cognitive science is a distinctly interdisciplinary field that connects neurosci- ence, psychology, philosophy, artificial intelligence, anthropology, linguistics, and first-person research on experience. However, this diversity, which gives cognitive science its richness and breadth, is also its core challenge. One of cognitive science’s main tasks is to bridge the gaps between different perspectives, levels of explanation, and disciplinary approaches to studying and un- derstanding the mind. For example, cognitive scientists are interested not only in what happens in the brain or in subjective experience but also in how to connect these two perspectives. Understanding these phenomena within broader theoretical and philosophical frameworks is also essential. Furthermore, cognitive science often addresses deeply personal and existential questions: What do these findings mean for our understanding of ourselves as sentient, thinking beings, and how do they relate to our everyday lives? After all, cognitive science seeks to understand our own mental life, which we intimately know, experience and live. This editorial for the special issue of Ars & Humanitas, titled At the Edge of Understanding: A Dialogue on Gaps in Cognitive Science, presents a conversation between two cognitive scientists: a philosopher and a cognitive neuroscientist. The dialogue introduces the issue’s main theme, which focuses on different types of gaps in cognitive science: between research perspectives (e.g., first-person versus third-person approaches), levels of observation (from molecular and cellular me- chanisms to complex brain systems and social interactions), and disciplinary fra- meworks (e.g., neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and art). The articles explore how to understand, bridge, and treat these gaps as “productive tensions”, or challen- ges that create opportunities for integrating diverse approaches, theories, and ways of understanding the mind. And perhaps the presented attempts at overcoming these gaps can also offer valuable insights into our own minds as they reveal them- selves to us in our everyday lives. DOI:10.4312/ars.19.1.5-12 AH_2025_1-FINAL.indd 9 31. 07. 2025 07:04:10 AnkA SlAnA Ozimič, TOmA STrle / AT The edge Of UnderSTAnding 10 Neuroscientist: Sometimes I feel like everyone in cognitive science is drawing their own map. Psychologists measure behaviour. Neuroscientists observe brain activity. Empirical phe- nomenologists study experience. Philosophers debate meaning. And yet, we are all looking at the same landscape – the human mind. The paths we draw through it just differ greatly. Philosopher: Those differences can be a source of valuable diversity or misunder- standing. Interdisciplinarity encourages us to deepen our understanding of the mind but also reveals, and sometimes reveal, the gaps between methodologies. One such gap is between first-person approaches, such as in-depth studies of lived experience, and third- -person approaches, such as brain studies. How to treat and reconcile these distinct me- thodologies is a vital question in cognitive science. Neuroscientist: It’s a crucial question that has long been neglected. We often forget that scientific data doesn’t arise in a vacuum. Rather, it’s shaped by methods that highli- ght certain aspects while overlooking others. That’s why it’s fascinating when approaches that take subjective experience seriously and investigate it systematically emerge. Philosopher: One such approach is micro-phenomenology. It’s a method of studying lived experience not as an inaccessible inner world but as something that can be described and analysed very precisely. One article in this issue illustrates this concept through a stu- dy of an actress. Using a micro-phenomenological interview, the researchers traced how an actress engaged with a dramatic text through auditory, physical and emotional sen- sations. This brings subtle, often unspoken aspects of the creative process into a scientific framework, expanding what we consider to be scientifically relevant. Meanwhile, another article emphasizes the importance of recognizing the differences, assumptions, and limi- tations of more naturalistic and phenomenological approaches. For instance, both study consciousness, yet each approach reveals a different picture of the phenomenon. Neuroscientist: Including the first-person perspective raises questions not only about the nature of data itself, but also about how we formulate scientific questions. Once we bro- aden our sense of what counts as relevant information, new challenges emerge, for instance, how to combine different levels of explanation such as subjective experience, behavioural patterns, and neural activity. That’s why the model presented in one of the contributions is so compelling. It links these levels within the framework of working memory research, de- monstrating the relationship between individuals’ task-solving strategies and their behavio- ur, brain activity, and subjective experience. The model suggests that individual variability is informative and can deepen our understanding, rather than being mere noise. Without embracing this multidimensionality, we risk oversimplifying the nature of the human mind. Philosopher: This connects nicely to questions of epistemological norms. What con- stitutes “good” research when we acknowledge the real-world limitations of researchers? One contribution proposes that “good enough” norms – those that fit the environment and our capacities – are often more appropriate than ideal ones. Neuroscientist: The same goes for scientific concepts. One philosophical paper argues AH_2025_1-FINAL.indd 10 31. 07. 2025 07:04:10 AnkA SlAnA Ozimič, TOmA STrle / AT The edge Of UnderSTAnding 11 that science doesn’t always require so-called natural kinds to be valid. Even if concepts aren’t based on solid ontological principles, explanations in cognitive science can still be meaningful and effective. What matters is that they work – that they help us understand the world, even if they aren’t fully “pure” or universal. Philosopher: What’s also intriguing is how art enters this space. Artistic research practices that engage with neuroscience are no longer just aesthetic; they also critically examine the limits of scientific methods. Some installations demonstrate where science reaches its explanatory limits, while others generate new approaches and tools for under- standing the mind. Neuroscientist: So, we see that gaps aren’t necessarily negative. They can be sites of transition, inquiry, and creativity. The articles in this issue present various ways of under- standing and utilizing these gaps, from research on consciousness and identity to methods for enhancing cognitive function. Philosopher: Perhaps the key is to see gaps not as errors but as natural inflection points – places where science stretches itself, seeks new directions, and opens spaces for innovation. Neuroscientist: Where there are gaps, there’s room to build bridges. Each article in this issue contributes to that effort – a multilayered, interdisciplinary, critically reflective endeavour. Philosopher: It’s less about finding a single answer and more about developing sensi- tivity to differences in explanatory levels, research methods, epistemological assumptions, and even what we consider “data”. One article addresses this by examining the uneasy relationship between naturalistic and phenomenological approaches to studying and un- derstanding the mind. Neuroscientist: Exactly. To understand the mind, we can’t remain confined to our disciplines or expect simple solutions. We need dialogue – not just between researchers, but also between approaches and languages of explanation. Philosopher: Perhaps we should also consider different ways of knowing the wor- ld, from personal experience to objective observation and everything in between. The contributions in this issue reflect these transitions: between behaviour and experience, explanation and lived meaning, science and art. Neuroscientist: Together, they form a collage that highlights the gaps as opportuni- ties for reflection rather than hiding them. That’s the future of cognitive science – not in avoiding challenging questions, but in creating spaces where they can flourish. This special issue of Ars & Humanitas presents a series of contributions that explo- re fragmentation, complexity, and the potential for integration within this diverse re- search field. Rather than viewing these gaps as shortcomings, the authors treat them as “productive tensions” – opportunities to develop new methods, conceptual tools, collaborations, and insights into the mind. AH_2025_1-FINAL.indd 11 31. 07. 2025 07:04:10 AnkA SlAnA Ozimič, TOmA STrle / AT The edge Of UnderSTAnding 12 The topics addressed range from methodological approaches to subjective expe- rience and creativity to systematic analyses of working memory strategies and philo- sophical discussions of normativity, explanation, and scientific unity. The issue also in- cludes critical views on transitions between theory and practice, art and neuroscience, naturalistic and phenomenological approaches to researching the mind, and under- standing the mind considering modern technologies and epistemological constraints. All contributions are united by an awareness of the importance of interdisciplina- rity, not merely as the formal merging of disciplines, but as the demanding and neces- sary practice of translation, coordination, and co-creation. In this spirit, the issue does not present a unified image of cognitive science, but rather opens a space where diver- se perspectives meet: philosophical inquiry meets empirical findings, natural sciences meet empirical phenomenology, theoretical frameworks meet practical applications, and scientific explanations meet artistic questions. Let this thematic issue serve as an invitation to further reflection – and above all, to exploring how even mismatches, divergences, and epistemological tensions can become fertile ground for new ways of understanding the human mind. AH_2025_1-FINAL.indd 12 31. 07. 2025 07:04:10