 Some argue that Millikan’s theory has advantages in comparison with Dretske’s indicator semantics (see e.g., Godfrey-Smith 1989 and Millikan 2004). On Millikan’s theory, a representation R can represent that some environmental feature F is present even if it was never the case that the presence of an R guaranteed the presence of an F. It suffices, on her theory, that Rs mapped onto Fs often enough for the representation’s consumers to have (so to speak) benefited from that mapping. Hence, there is no need to provide independently specifiable “channel conditions” for the mapping relation.