 In relation to this last point, one can ask more generally if some content ascriptions are suitable for some theoretical purposes and others for others. One might agree that folk psychological ascriptions of intentional mental states are meant to rationalize behavior but question whether this is their role in cognitive science. In the latter case, the aim is to explain the psychological capacities of humans and (in the case of cognitive neuroethology) other creatures. Thus a question to ask is what content ascriptions would serve the explanatory purposes of the mind and brain sciences, rather than our folk psychological intuitions. Neander (2006) and Schulte (2012) argue that Millikan’s biosemantics generates the wrong contents for mainstream (information-processing) theories of perception in relation to the simple system cases discussed in the philosophy literature. A principle of such mainstream theories is that, in vision, the ‘deeper’ properties of objects that are directly relevant for biological fitness are only represented after the surface features of objects are first represented (see, e.g., Palmer 1999). The worry is that biosemantics and related theories entail that, at least in certain cases, it is only the ‘deeper’, beneficial properties that are represented in perception.