Representationalists have routinely expressed skepticism about the idea that inflexible responses to stimuli (e.g. reflexive responses like the pupillary light reflex) are to be explained in representational terms. Representations are supposed to be more than just causal mediators in the chain of events stretching from stimulus to response, and it is difficult to see how the sensory states driving reflexes are doing more than playing the role of causal intermediaries. One popular strategy for distinguishing representations from mere causal mediators is to require that representations are decoupled from specific stimulus conditions. I believe this requirement on representation is mistaken and at odds with explanatory practices in sensory ecology. Even when sensory states have the job of coordinating a specific output with a specific input, we can still find them doing the work of representations, carrying information needed for organisms to respond successfully to environmental conditions. We can uncover information at work by intervening specifically on the information conveyed by sensory states, leaving their causal role undisturbed.

中文翻译：

---

表现在僵化行为中的作用

表象主义者通常对以下观点表示怀疑：对刺激的僵化反应（例如，像瞳孔光反射这样的反射反应）应该用代表性术语来解释。表征应该不仅仅是从刺激到反应的事件链中的因果中介，而且很难看出驱动反射的感觉状态除了扮演因果中介的角色外，还做了什么。将表征与单纯的因果中介区分开来的一种流行策略是要求表征与特定刺激条件分离。我认为这种对表征的要求是错误的，并且与感官生态学的解释实践不一致。即使感官状态负责协调特定输出与特定输入的工作，我们仍然可以发现它们在进行表征工作，携带生物体成功应对环境条件所需的信息。我们可以通过专门干预感官状态传达的信息来发现工作中的信息，而让它们的因果作用不受干扰。