Argues that representational content is a role-dependent feature, addressing foundational philosophical puzzles.
What makes a representational content representational? A widespread assumption, often unstated, is that content-hood is an intrinsic feature: a determinate fact, written into a state, of what it represents. This paper argues that the assumption cannot be sustained, and that its retirement dissolves a family of famous puzzles. Building on a companion account of the representational asymmetry, on which the generative act of representing is never among the contents it produces, we run the asymmetry in the reverse direction: what makes a content representational is never itself represented. Searching a content for its content-hood yields only further contents, exactly as searching for the act does. Representational status is therefore role-deep: constituted in the act’s sorting, fully real as role-filler, with nothing representational beneath the role; original, but not intrinsic. Act and content are accordingly two roles of a single occurrence, not two items in sequence. Dennett saw the deflationary half of this and mislocated its ground, relativizing content to an interpreter’s stance and inviting a regress of ascribers; constitution in the producing closes the regress. The account is then tested where the two-items picture visibly breaks: the temporal anomalies of consciousness and the Orwellian/Stalinesque dispute, whose dissolution is recovered without Dennett’s verificationism and with phenomenal realism intact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Ekeson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: