 According to the second version of the ‘real nature’ strategy, defended by Papineau (2001; 2016), the common intuitive verdict that Swampman would have intentional states may well be true, but its truth would be irrelevant, because it does not conflict with the core claims of teleosemantics (correctly understood). The idea here is that Swampman’s existence is a mere possibility, while teleosemantics is a claim about the actual world – very roughly, the claim that in the actual world, intentional states are selectional states of a certain kind (Papineau 2001, 283–284). Hence, the mere possibility of a Swampman whose intentional states are not selectional states is perfectly compatible with the truth of teleosemantics.