 There has been much discussion of this second strategy in recent years. Some critics argue that it is undermined by actual Swampman-like cases (Peters 2014, Porter 2020), or by the epistemic possibility of such cases (Sebastián 2017). Braddon-Mitchell and Jackson (2002) have tried to show that such a version of teleosemantics collapses into a form of analytical functionalism. Furthermore, Schulte (2020, 2286–2288) contends that acknowledging even the mere possibility of a Swampman with intentional states is incompatible with the reductive aspirations of teleosemantics. Such considerations may lead us to reject the teleosemantic approach (at least in its standard, etiological form), but they can also be taken as reasons to adopt the first version of the ‘real nature’ strategy instead of the second.