 Likewise, Martin (1995: 278) states that the sense of ownership is not an additional quality to the sensory qualities of bodily experiences and that it is “somehow already inherent within them”. For instance, in the rubber hand illusion participants do not report only ownership towards the rubber hand, but also referred tactile sensations on the fake hand. One may then argue that experiencing the rubber hand as one’s own is nothing more than feeling sensations in it (Wu forthcoming). One intuitive way to spell out the deflationary conception is indeed in spatial terms: “when one feels a bodily sensation to have a location there is no issue over whose body it appears to belong to” (Martin 1992: 201). Martin claims that the spatial phenomenology can account for the sense of ownership because there is an identity between one’s own body and the body in which one locates bodily experiences. According to the sole-object view that he defends, for an instance of bodily experience to count as an instance of perception, it must indeed be an experience of what is in fact the subject’s actual body. However, one can be aware of the boundaries of one’s body without being aware of the boundaries of one’s body qua one’s own (Dokic 2003; Serrahima forthcoming). A further problem for all deflationary conceptions comes from dissociation between bodily sensations and the sense of ownership. They indeed predict that it is inconceivable for one to experience sensations in a limb and fail to experience this limb as one’s own (Martin 1995; Dokic 2003). However, it has been found that patients with disownership syndromes can still experience some bodily experiences (e.g., Moro et al. 2004). The question then is whether this type of results can invalidate the deflationary conception or not (Bradley forthcoming).