In this article I outline, apply, and defend a theory of natural representation. The main consequences of this theory are: (i) representational status is a matter of how physical entities are used, and specifically is not a matter of causation, nomic relations with the intentional object, or information; (ii) there are genuine (brain‐) internal representations; (iii) such representations are really representations, and not just farcical pseudo‐representations, such as attractors, principal components, state‐space partitions, or what‐have‐you; and (iv) the theory allows us to sharply distinguish those complex behaviors which are genuinely cognitive from those which are merely complex and adaptive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rick Grush (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: