Stored representations of experiences of forces in actions on objects enter into perceptual interpretations and mental simulations of object motions and interactions. In reply to the comment of Hubbard (2012), I clarify some ambiguities in my account (White, 2012) and correct some poor choices of expression. In addition, I address substantive issues: the relation between the matching process and impressions of resistance, which I clarify; the relation between force impressions and causal impressions, which remains problematic; the additional evidence for representations of force in mental simulation, which I cite; and the issue of falsifiability, which I address. I hope that my account will stimulate more research on motor output and haptic feedback as sources of knowledge of forces and causality.