1. Teleological Representationalism (TR)

Representationalism is one of the most interesting and popular theories of consciousness. According to it, the phenomenal character of experience is fully determined by its intentional content. Conscious experiences are, therefore, representational states. Representationalism is an appealing theory for materialists, on the assumption that the relation of representation can itself be naturalized.

The virtual majority in the business of naturalizing consciousness by reducing the problem of consciousness to the problem of representation assumes that teleological theories of mental content can deliver the naturalistic theory their accounts require.¹ Not much attention has been paid, however, to the interaction between representationalism on the one hand and teleosemanticism on the other. This paper will provide reasons to think that the interaction between these two theoretical endeavors is not felicitous.

I call “teleological theory” to any account in which the teleological notion of function plays a constitutive role in the determination of reference. For example, ^{Dretske (1988)} defends that the notion of representation is intimately connected to that of indication (carrying information). But we don’t want to maintain that a mental state M represents all the things that it indicates; M represents exclusively those entities that it indicates in normal conditions. This is a normative notion that has to be unpacked and for this purpose teleological theories appeal to the teleological function of M: a representing system is one that has the teleological function of indicating that suchand-such is the case, being such-and-such its intentional content.

Roughly, the teleological function of mental state M is what M was selected for, where selection is understood as natural selection (^{Wright 1973}; ^{Millikan 1984}, ¹⁹⁸⁹, and ^{Neander 1991}).²

A representationalist who embraces teleological theories (henceforth TR) will defend something along the combination of the following two principles:

Representationalism Having an experience with phenomenal character Q is being in a state that represents a certain content C.

Teleological A state M represents C because M has the teleological function of indicating C.³M has the teleological function of indicating C, because indicating C is what M has been selected for.⁴M has been selected for indicating M for example in the following case:

In order to have certain content C, M has to have been selected for. It is not only the causal role of the state, but also its history what explains the content that M has.

2. Interindeterminacy

In order to present my argument, let me introduce the notion of interindeterminacy.

Interindeterminacy Two predicates like “is A” and “is B” are interindeterminates if and only if there is an individual x such that it is indeterminate whether x is A and, at the same time, it is indeterminate whether x is B.

An example of interindeterminate predicates would be “is yellow” and “is green” for there are colors such that it is indeterminate whether they are yellow and, at the same time, indeterminate whether they are green. On the other hand, an example of noninterindeterminate predicates would be “is hairy” and “lacks hair”. “Is hairy” undoubtedly admits borderline cases and arguably also does “lacks hair”; just consider someone who only has fuzz. However, they are not interindeterminates: if it is indeterminate whether someone is hairy then determinately doesn’t lack hair and if it is indeterminate whether someone lacks hair then she is determinately not hairy.

Now, consider the following plausible principle regarding identity statements involving vague predicates, like the one vindicated by TR:

V-identity ˹P-ing=Q-ing˺ is true only if the corresponding predicates ˹has/is P˺ and ˹has/is Q˺ match in their borderline profiles. Where ˹has/is P˺ and ˹has/is Q˺ match in their borderline profiles just in case every borderline case of ˹has/is P˺ is a borderline case of ˹has/is Q˺ and the other way around.⁵

In the particular case of TR, this principle entails that if having and experience with phenomenal character Q is being in a state that represents C, then “has an experience with phenomenal character Q” and “represents C” (or “is a representation of C”) match in their borderline profiles: if it is indeterminate whether an experience has phenomenal character Q, then is also indeterminate whether the corresponding mental state represents C and the other way around.

I submit that TR is committed to the claim (i) that it can be indeterminate whether a subject’s state M represents C (is a representation of C) and, at the same time, indeterminate whether it does not represent anything at all -“represents C” and “does not represent anything at all” are interindeterminates according to TR and, hence, if V-identity is true, (ii) that it can be indeterminate whether a subject’s state M has phenomenal character PC and, at the same time, indeterminate whether there is something it is like to be in M- “has phenomenal character PC” and “lacks phenomenal character” are interindeterminates. I will show that this is not a tenable option. Let’s start with (i).

3. Interindeterminacy and Representation

The claim (i) that it can be indeterminate whether a state M represents C and, at the same time, indeterminate whether it does not represent anything at all is a consequence of one of the two principles that TR endorses: Teleological. According to Teleological, the content of a state depends on what it indicates -what the state carries information about- and on a selection process. The content of a state depends not only on its causal role, broadly understood as to include the environment, but also on its causal history. So, there are, at least, two sources of indeterminacy in this process: it can be indeterminate whether the state indicates/tracks information about C, something that depends (among other things) on the broad causal role of the state; and it can be indeterminate whether the state has been selected for indicating C, independently on whether the state determinately indicates C or not. The problem I would like to present depends on the indeterminacy in the selection process and I will, therefore, ignore the first kind of indeterminacy for the sake of simplicity in the exposition.⁶

According to teleosemantics, states of some individuals along the phylogentical chain are such that the relation of representation holds between these states and what they carry information about. This is not the case for the states of some ancestors -precisely because a selection process is required for a state to be contentful-, in spite of the fact that they might inhabit the same environment and that their respective states might have identical causal roles, and hence indicate the same property.

If we call “redness character” to the phenomenal character of the experience I undergo while looking at a ripe tomato in the sunlight, representationalists will maintain that having an experience with redness character is being in a state that represent a certain property. I will call this property “RED”. Advocates of Teleosemantics are committed to the claim that it may be the case that a state of an individual represents RED whereas a state of the same kind in a structurally identical ancestor that has inhabited the same environment does not represent anything at all. Let me elaborate on this situation.

Imagine an ancestor of mine, S1, such that none of her ancestors’s states have tracked property RED. Assume that a state M appears for the first time in the phylogenetical chain in S1. M is activated whenever she is in front of an object with certain property RED. M indicates RED, but, in S1, it (her token thereof) does not represent anything because it has not been selected for. The same is true for S2 (the direct descendant of S1) or S3 (the direct descendant of S2), who inherit this mutation.

On the other hand, in a modern subject, Sn, who is a descendant of S1, mental state M represents RED because indicating RED is what explains M being there. Sn and Sn-1 (the direct ancestor of Sn) and Sn-2 (the direct ancestor of Sn-1) can be in a mental state that represents RED.⁷

Selection seems to be a matter of degree and to admit borderline cases: there are states of individuals in the phylogenetical chain such that it is indeterminate whether the state has been selected for or not. We can run a soritical series from clear cases in which the subject’s mental state has not been selected for, like in the case of S1, and clear cases in which it has, like Sn. So, the phylogenetical chain contains a soritical series of states of individuals with respect to selection and hence with respect to representation: it can be indeterminate whether a mental state M of an individual S has been selected for indicating RED and therefore whether it represents RED. Nothing particularly worrisome rests in this fact. The important point to notice here for my current purposes is that all the individuals in the phylogenetical chain indicate/track information about the very same property RED; so, they either represent RED (if the state has been selected for) or nothing at all (if the state has not been selected for). Hence, if it is indeterminate whether a state M of a subject S has been selected for indicating RED, then it is not merely indeterminate whether M represents RED, but it is also indeterminate whether M does not represent anything at all.⁸ Consequently, according to Teleological, “represents RED” and “does not represent anything at all” are interindeterminates. I do not take this consequence of Teleological to be problematic at this point but when combined with Representationalism as we are about to see.

4. Not all Phenomenal Characters Admit such Borderline Cases

According to TR, experiences are identified with representational states: having an experience with phenomenal character PC is being in a state that represents a certain content C. In our example, having and experience with redness character is being in a state that represents RED.

We have seen that those who endorse Teleological are committed to the claim that “represents RED” and “does not represent anything at all” are interindeterminates: there are individuals in the phylogenetical chain such that it is indeterminate whether their tokens of state type M represents RED and indeterminate whether they represent anything at all. When combined with Representationalism, this amounts to (ii): the claim that, for some individuals S in the phylogenetical chain it is indeterminate whether the experience they undergo when they instantiate M has redness character and, at the same time, indeterminate whether there is anything it is like for S to be in M; i.e. the claim that “has a redness character” and “lacks phenomenal character” are interindeterminates.⁹

In the first place, this would require that it can be indeterminate whether being in a certain state feels at all and intuitively, phenomenal consciousness is sharp rather than vague in this respect. For every subject S and mental state M of S, either S determinately feels something when she is in M or she determinately doesn’t: either determinately there is something it is like for S to be in M or determinately there isn’t.¹⁰ Namely, “has phenomenal character PC” and “lacks phenomenal character” are not interindeterminates.

One can concede that there might be states such that it is indeterminate whether there is something, rather than nothing, it is like to have them. In this case there would be predicates of phenomenal characters that would be interindeterminate with “lacks phenomenal character”. This possibility is suggested by ^{Tye (1996)}:

Suppose you are participating in a psychological experiment and you are listening to quieter and quieter sound through some head-phones. As the process continues, there may come a point at which you are unsure whether you hear anything at all. [. . . ] it could be that there is no fact of the matter about whether there is anything it is like for you to be in the state you are in at that time. In short, it could be that you are undergoing a borderline experience. (p. 682)

I am happy to concede, at least for the sake of the argument, that very dull experiences, like a very quiet sound or a very weak pain, are borderline experiences, in the sense that it is indeterminate whether there is anything it is like to be in these states.¹¹ This possibility doesn’t seem plausible at all in the case of states like my current headache or the color sensation I have when I look at a ripe tomato in the sunlight. For any experience, if it is indeterminate whether it has redness character or the same character as my headache, then it determinately has a phenomenal character and if it is indeterminate whether an experience has a phenomenal character at all then it determinately does not have redness character or the same character as my current headache. In other words, “has redness character” or “has the same character as my current headache” are not interindeterminate with “lacks phenomenal character”¹² This is, however, as we have seen, what TR requires. If this is correct, TR should be rejected.¹³

5. Conclusion

Representationalism, the view that the phenomenal character of experience is fully determined by its intentional content, is a very promising theory in the project of naturalizing consciousness when combined with a naturalistic theory of mental content like Teleosemantics.

Teleosemantics theories typically unpack the normativity in the relation of representation by means of the teleological function of the state, which in turn depends on a selection for process. I have argued that teleosemanticists are committed to the claim that there are (token) states such that it is indeterminate whether they represent a property P or nothing at all. Consequently, those who endorse the conjunction of Representationalism and Teleosemantics (TR) are committed to the claim that it can be indeterminate whether a state has phenomenal character PC and, at the same time, indeterminate whether there is anything it is like to be in the state M. This does not seem plausible at all, as the cases under consideration, like my headache or the experience I have while looking at a ripe tomato under the sunlight, illustrate. If this is right, TR should be rejected.¹⁴