John Kulvicki

Problems concerning scientists’ uses of representations have received quite a bit of attention recently. The focus has been on how such representations get their contents and on just what those contents are. Less attention has been paid to what makes certain kinds of scientific representations different from one another and thus well suited to this or that epistemic end. This article considers the latter question with particular focus on the distinction between images and graphs on the one hand and descriptions and related representations on the other. *Received January 2008; revised September 2009. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755; e‐mail: [email protected].

For the information theorist, the lawful generalizations that subsume instantiations of properties in the environment and instantiations of properties of perceptual representations determine the latter's content. Perceptual representations are also commonly thought to be isomorphic to what they represent, which presents the information theorist with a puzzle. What role could isomorphism play in perceptual representation when lawful generalizations determine content? I show that in order for the information that they carry to be available to cognition, perceptual representations must be isomorphic with respect to the constituent structure of the properties that they represent. Isomorphism therefore plays an important role in the information theorist's account of perceptual representation, even though it plays no role in determining content.