ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the casts familiar tracking theories of mental representation as incomplete: while it is clear how they might account for objective representation, they at least require supplementation to account for subjective representation. The feature in virtue of which mental states represent in one sense is completely different from that in virtue of which they represent in the other—and this is not a matter of different subject matters, since the subject matter can and often is actually the same. Theories of mental representation familiar from the "naturalizing intentionality research program" tend to fall into two groups: causal-covariational theories and teleological theories. Theories of mental representation familiar from the "naturalizing intentionality research program" tend to fall into two groups: causal-covariational theories and teleological theories. The reductivist gambit in this area is to develop a broadly causal-covariational or teleological account of subjective representation.
