Evolution and belief: the missing question

In this paper, I address the question of what an evolutionary account of intentional states should look like. I suggest that many accounts rest on the (usually implicit) assumption that, so far as intentionality is concerned, differences between animal species should be understood solely in terms of comparative sophistication. I argue that this assumption is misguided. Such accounts ignore an important biological distinction between functional and anatomical characterisations and seek to explain comparative differences that are symptomatic of functional divergence by appealing solely to a cognitive analogue of anatomical complexity. This results in accounts that are fundamentally incomplete or beside the point.