Tumor‐cell diversification mechanisms insure that malignant neoplasms contain diversified tumor‐cell subpopulations. Because of the instability of tumor cell phenotypes, some malignant cells will evolve with the most favorable properties for their progression to highly metastatic cells. The rates of cellular phenotypic diversification vary greatly among different tumors, and they are probably modulated, in part, by genetic and chromosome defects and by epigenetic events that may vary widely depending upon the nature of the tumor cells and their microenvironments. As tumor diversification (...) and selection proceed, the most malignant cell subpopulations may eventually become dominant and gradually lose their microenvironmental responsiveness. Tumor‐cell diversification mechanisms may be similar or identical to normal, developmentally regulated diversification mechanisms that are used during embryonic cell diversification and differentiation. (shrink)

Alterations in the expression of certain genes or in their products can render benign tumor cells metastatic. Experimentally this has been quickly performed by transferring dominantly acting oncogenes such as c‐H‐rasEJ into susceptible cells, but in vivo such a rapid qualitative change in a dominantly acting oncogene occurs only rarely, and progression to highly metastatic phenotypes is thought to occur through a slow stepwise process. Such slow changes can be reversible and need not involve known dominantly acting oncogenes, consistent with (...) clinical observations. An important element of the natural progression of tumors to malignancy may be their ability to circumvent microenvironmental controls that regulate growth and cellular diversity and to evolve into heterogeneous phenotypes, a process that appears to involve mainly quantitative changes in gene expression but which can be rapidly stimulated in cell culture by the introduction of a dominantly acting oncogene. It is proposed that the highly malignant cells that have slowly evolved in vivo with only a few qualitative gene changes have undergone extensive cycles of diversification and accumulation of quantitative changes in the expression of genes that encode products that are related to malignancy and metastasis. Thus, highly malignant cellular phenotypes can arise quickly through specific qualitative changes in critical controlling genes or more slowly by less critical qualitative genetic changes, coupled with cellular diversification and accumulation of quantitative changes in gene expression. (shrink)

L'originalité de cet ouvrage consiste à poser à deux philosophes contemporains français des questions-clefs de la phénoménologie que jusqu'ici on ne posait guère qu'à Husserl. Ce changement de perspective permet de lire autrement des problèmes essentiels de ce champ philosophique : la corporéité, la relation à autrui, l'être au monde. Le renouveau actuel de l'intérêt pour Merleau-Ponty et Levinas, que l'on commence enfin à étudier pour eux-mêmes et non plus simplement comme des disciples plus ou moins fidèles de la phénoménologie (...) allemande, permet de prendre au sérieux le renouveau apporté par ces deux auteurs. Leur confrontation - rarement étudiée comme telle jusqu'à présent - peut ouvrir à une nouvelle compréhension de ces thèmes : leurs chemins, parallèles pendant un temps, s'éloignent ensuite de façon radicale, tout en témoignant toujours d'une " manière de faire " commune. On voit enfin ici comment se réalise de façon exemplaire ce mouvement de transformation de la phénoménologie que Paul Ricœur avait désigné comme " hérétique " par rapport aux seules reprises ou explications de la pensée de Husserl : il y a, chez ces deux penseurs, du nouveau! (shrink)

Que se passe-t-il en nous face à la perte de l'évidence humaine, lorsque les attributs classiques de la personne humaine font défaut? Les situations de non-communication, d'absence de réciprocité interrogent la définition de l'humain: qu'est-ce que rester ou cesser d'être humain? La question de l'appartenance commune à l'humanité passe par l'interrogation sur le semblable, jusqu'à mettre au jour un paradoxe qui nous semble être la clef de la relation en situations extrêmes: une ressemblance qui s'impose et indispose, causant un effroi (...) que l'on cherche à fuir Cette ressemblance, qui s'expérimente sur le mode d'une inquiétante étrangeté, renvoie à une historicité humaine primordiale, celle de la détresse initiale. Mais qui est mon semblable? Celui dont je reconnais la proximité, et dont je peux me décider à m'approcher. La relation, capacité à se tenir proche, réouvre un monde commun. La phénoménologie de la relation en situations extrêmes permet d'esquisser une éthique de la 'prochaineté'"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

La vulnérabilité dans la relation de soin est manifeste du côté de la personne malade. Il s’agit ici de mettre à jour l’impensé de cette relation : la vulnérabilité du soignant, exposé non seulement à la souffrance, mais à toute l’existence d’autrui, jusqu’à sa mort. À partir d’une expérience de bénévolat en soins palliatifs, cet article présente quelques aspects de ce que Ricœur appelle une « phénoménologie du soi affecté par l’autre que soi », afin de montrer que la reconnaissance (...) de cette vulnérabilité peut devenir une vertu relationnelle. Juste milieu entre l’impuissance et la toute-puissance, elle ouvre à la sollicitude, qui révèle les capacités et permet une action ajustée à la situation. Reconnue comme « fonds commun » entre soignant et soigné, elle permet de corriger l’asymétrie de la relation pour y introduire une dimension de réciprocité. (shrink)

En mettant à mal la réciprocité, certaines situations de maladie en viennent à questionner la reconnaissance et l’appartenance de l’autre à une commune humanité. La lecture de Merleau-Ponty et Levinas permet d’esquisser une phénoménologie de la rencontre en l’absence de communication. La chair chez l’un, la vulnérabilité chez l’autre révèlent une proximité malgré soi. L’inquiétante étrangeté de l’autre renvoie à une expérience primordiale de détresse et de dépendance qui nous est commune. À partir de là, peut se constituer une éthique (...) de la proximité à partir du sensible. (shrink)

Deux ouvrages récents permettent d’analyser les rapports de la philosophie aux expériences humaines extrêmes : celui de Stéphane Madelrieux sur les « expériences radicales » et celui d’Agata Zielinski sur les « situations extrêmes ».

El v. 526 del primer estásimo de Traquinias ofrece un problema textual hasta el momento no resuelto. La difícil comprensión del μάτηρ transmitido por los manuscritos ha dado lugar a diversas conjeturas. Entre ellas la que ha gozado de mayor aceptación es la de θατήρ de Zielinski, pero también provoca problemas la interpretación que se le ha dado a tenor de la caracterización del coro. El artículo apoya esta conjetura y la pone en relación con una fuente esencial de (...) información de hechos pasados especialmente para las mujeres, la iconografía. In the first stasimon of Trachiniae, l. 526 there is an issue related to textual criticism which has not been solved yet. It is hard to understand the term μάτηρ noted in manuscripts, hence this fact leads to various assumptions. The most relevant was made by Zielinski, noting θατήρ. The interpretation given to Zielinski’s assumption causes several difficulties as it takes into account how the Chorus is depicted in the plot. This paper supports Zielinski’s assumption as it shows how it is related with a relevant source of information about the past events of women such as the iconography. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:RUSSELL AND G. H. HARDY: A STUDY OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP I. GRATTAN-GUINNESS Faculty of Science, Engineering and Mathematics Middlesex Polytechnic Enfield, Middlesex EN3 45F, England I. INTRODUCTION Prom time to time the name of Hardy turns up in Russell's career: a common interest in set theory and the philosophy of mathematics, similar political and religious sentiments, and certain matters of mutual concern arising at Trinity College Cambridge and in (...) the university in general. However, there is no connected account of their contacts. The purpose of this article is to fill a gap in the literature on both men. After enduring private instruction at home, Bertrand Russell gained a minor scholarship in mathematics at Trinity College in 1890; he took Part I of the Mathematical Tripos until 1893 and then Part II of the Moral Sciences Tripos in the following year. In 1895 he gained a Prize Fellowship, which he held until 1901; in 19IO.he was awarded a college lectureship which he lost six years later under circumstances noted in section IV below. Much of the intervening time was spent in Oxford or London; however, he spent part of each year in Cambridge.1 The later years are brieHy recorded in section IV. Born into an intellectual family ofmodest means in 1877 (five years younger than Russell, therefore), Godfrey Harold Hardy won a scholarship to Winchester College and then went to Trinity College in I Standard biographical information on Russell is easily available; see, for example, R. W. Clark, The Life ofBertrand Russel~ specific phases and events are dealt with in succeeding footnotes. The Autobiography ofBertrand Russell is of lower quality than one might imagine; for example, Hardy is not mentioned at all! rus.ell: the Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives McMasrer Unive~ity Library Press noS. 11 (wimer 1991-92): 165-79 ISSN 0036-01631 166 I. GRATTAN-GUINNESS 1896, just after Russell had gained his fellowship. He was elected to the Apostles (the "Society") in 1898, the year after Russell "took wings" after five years' active membership; he seems to have been less active than Russell as a speaker during his own three years there.2 At some stage he also joined the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club, which Russell had joined in. 1891; a surprising contribution will be described in section IV.3 Graduating as fourth wrangler in Part I of the Mathematical Tripos in 1898 and gaining a high place in Part II in 1900, Hardy received at once a Prize Fellowship (like Russell). Upon its termination six years later, he obtained a colleg~ lectureship, which he held until 1919. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1910 (two years after Russell),4 and in the following year he began his life-long collaboration with his younger colleague ]. E. Littlewood (1885-1977), also a Trinity College graduate and then Fellow, and also a friend of Russell.5 The next stages of Hardy's career will be described in section IV: his personality is assessed in a concluding section v. 1 On Russell'~ and Hardy's roles in the Apostles, see passim in P. Levy, Moore: G. E Moore and the Cambridge Apostles (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979). 3 The chief obituary of Hardy is by E. C. Titchmarsh, published in slightly different forms in Obituary Notices ofthe Royal Society ofLondon, 6 (1949); 447-61, and Journal ofthe London Mathematical Society, 25 (1950): 81-101 (followed by more technical surveys of his mathematics by Titchmarsh and eight other authors on pp. 102-38). The first version is reprinted with a few changes in Hardy's Collected Papers, 7 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon P., 1966-79), I: 1-12. No major study has been written on him since. 4 Hardy was n~minated for a Royal Sociery fellowship in 1907 by A. R. Forsyth, seconded by J. W L. Glaisher, and supported "on personal knowledge" by W Burnside, E. W Hobson, P. A. MacMahon, A. N. Whitehead, A. E. H. Love, E. B. Elliott and T.]. d'A. Bromwich; the proposal was "suspended" (put up for voring) in 1908, 1909 and 1910 (Royal Sociery Cettificates, 12: foJ. 311). Although Russell was... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Russell's leviathan by Mark S. Lippincott 1. INTRODUCTION BERTRAND RUSSELL'S POLITICAL thought underwent several metamorphoses in his nearly seventy years of political activism and writing. Indeed, many commentators on Russell take this as the overarching attribute ofhis politics. Alan Ryan writes that "Russell's career defies summary analysis; his life was much too long and his activities too various. His philosophical allegiances were no more stable than his emotional allegiances, (...) and his political allegiances no more stable than either."1 Likewise, Benjamin Barber suggests that "Russell had to contend with staying alive; and by the time he was ninety, consistency must have seemed to him less like the hobgoblin of little minds than the hallmark Of a short life."2 Ryan, Barber and others come to different conclusions about Russell's engagements with pacifism, anarcho-syndicalism, socialism and liberalism, but their efforts, taken collectively, signal a growing appreciation for the fluidity of Russell's politics. This essay treats the diversity of Russell's "political allegiances" as a first step 1 Alan Ryan, Bertrand Russell: a Political Life (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1988), p. l. 2 Benjamin R. Barber, "Solipsistic Politics: Bertrand Russell and Empiricist Liberalism", in his The Conquest ofPolitics: Liberal Philosophy in Democratic Times (Princeton: Princeton U. P., 1988), p. 25. Russell's leviathan 7 toward a new understanding of his political thought. Yet, unlike so much commentary on Russell, the search for the overarching concept or unifying theme is eschewed. The core premise of the argument is that to understand the political Russell, it is necessary to suspend the urge to unify. What is crucial is an openness to the extraordinary variety and range of his political interests and reflections. Once this step is taken, it becomes possible to uncover the degree to which Russell's eclectic activism is reflected in his approach to political theory. It becomes possible to see that his statements on a particular political issue are embedded with concepts selected from various sources within the western tradition ofpolitical discourse. In addition, this approach highlights the conceptual background of some of Russell's more contentious political statements which seem so characteristically out of character. The issue selected for this essay arises from one of the most controversial and least understood acts in Russell's life. It concerns his public statements following World War II that the United States might do well to use its monopoly of atomic bombs to force the Soviet Union into abandoning the development of its own atomic weapons. Past attempts to explain this episode range from cursory denials and dismissals of its importance, to assertions that it was the step-child of Russell's Russophobia.3 If one examines these state3 The argument for threatening the Soviet Union into renouncing nuclear weapons is advanced by Russell in several public statements: "The Bomb and Civilization", Forward, 29 Sept. 1945; "Humanity's Last Chance", Cavalcade, 20 Oct. 1945; speech in the House of Lords, Hansard,_'2,~Nov. 1945; "The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War", Polemic, July-Aug. 1946; speech in the House of Lords, Hansard, 30 April 1947; "Still Time for Good Sense", '47 Magazine ofthe Year, Nov. 1947; "International Government", The New Commonwealth, Jan. 1948. Ronald Clark provides an important guide to Russell's statements during this period in Vie Life of Bertrand Russell (London : CapelWeidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975), but he does not examine the philosophical background. Alan Ryan comes closest to seeing Russell's theoretical link with Hobbes, but he leaves it as a passing remark about Russell's attitude towards world government during the First World War: "It is as if Russell had read Hobbes's Leviathan and been carried away by Hobbes's argument that the state of nature and the war of all against all was so dreadful that any rational man would fly to absolute monarchy for protection. Russell generalizes Hobbes's argument to the international sphere, but it fails to ask how men who get themselves into a 'war of all against all' can be expected to get themselves out again, and fails to show how they have done 8 Russell summer 1990 ments with an eye to Russell's... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 61.1 (2000) 153-156 [Access article in PDF] JHI 2000 Donald R. Kelley It was just sixty years ago that this Journal first made its appearance. Two hundred thirty-nine issues later it continues in a world transformed by war, overpopulation, cultural shocks, scientific and technological transformations, globalization, the avalanche of information produced by electronic exchange, and "the acceleration of just about everything." Yet despite (...) these factors and the strains of postmodernism and cultural alterity, 1 it has not entirely lost touch with its intellectual innocence, faith in humanistic learning, and reliance on enlightened reason. This continuity itself may seem something of a novelty in an age of distrust of history and "rage against reason," but for some of us it reflects the critical spirit and intellectual context out of which such ostensibly subversive attitudes emerge, and reemerge. To some extent, moreover, the diversity of opinions about intellectual traditions is the result of specializations, and special interests, which have changed the climate of opinion since the time of Arthur O. Lovejoy, principal founder of the JHI. Lovejoy's vision was super- as well as inter-disciplinary; that is, he intended to include in the agenda of "history of ideas" particular areas of history of philosophy, literature, art, science, social science, etc., as well as the larger intellectual and cultural areas into which these disciplinary histories extend. 2 These days, however, all these disciplinary traditions have their own more specialized journals and do not need to seek a vehicle in publications of more general interest. What remains then, for the most part, is the interdisciplinary arena in which larger questions of human experience should be posed--and for Lovejoy, as for so many epigones and critics, the main "larger question" is not only one of value but also of specifically historical inquiry. 3 [End Page 153]The first issue of the JHI appeared under the editorship of Lovejoy (with Philip Wiener, who did most of the editorial work, as "managing editor"), assisted by a committee that included two historians, three philosophers, four literary scholars, and one political theorist; namely, Crane Brinton, Gilbert Chinard, Morris Cohen, Francis Coker, Richard McKeon, Perry Miller, Marjory Nicolson, J. H. Randall, J. Salwyn Schapiro, and Louis Wright. The first volume featured contributions from each of these, including Wiener, except for Miller (vol. 2), Shapiro (vol. 3), McKeon (vol. 8), and Coker. 4 During the first five years there were also reviews of books by Dilthey (by Horace L. Friess), Croce (Schapiro), Mannheim (Randall), Perry Miller (Herbert W. Schneider), Van Wyck Brooks (Miller) and Alfred Kazin (F. O. Matthiessen). In this period the disciplinary distribution of articles was not markedly different from that of the past five years, nor was the ranking of fields by number of submissions. 5 Most important, the original interdisciplinary thrust of Lovejoy's agenda, if not his attachment to the spiritualist currency of "unit-ideas," has survived growing specialization.At first the history of ideas was pursued largely in the shadow of the history of philosophy; for in this field, according to Lovejoy, "is to be found the common seed-plot, the locus of initial manifestation in writing, of the greater number of the more fundamental and pervasive ideas, and especially of the ruling preconceptions, which manifest themselves in other regions of intellectual history." 6 Lovejoy's concern was always with concepts, especially "-isms," and yet in some ways he anticipated the "linguistic turn" of the later years of this century, pointing out in particular "the role of semantic shifts, ambiguities, and confusions, in the history of thought and taste," for "nearly all of the great catchwords have been equivocal--or rather, multivocal." 7 If ideas could be given stable definitions, they were nonetheless often, in the context of language, in conflict, even in the mind of a single thinker; for such was the "anomaly of knowledge." 8 So Lovejoy was at pains to distinguish the various meanings of [End Page 154] catch-words like "nature," "perfectibility," "romanticism," "progress," and "pragmatism," not to mention more inflammatory terms of wartime ideological debate.But... (shrink)

In the 21st century, the screen - the Internet screen, the television screen, the video screen and all sorts of combinations thereof - will be booming in our visual and infotechno culture. Screen-based art, already a prominent and topical part of visual culture in the 1990s, will expand even more. In this volume, digital art - the new media - as well as its connectedness to cinema will be the subject of investigation. The starting point is a two-day symposium organized (...) by the Netherlands Media Art Institute Montevideo/TBA, in collaboration with the _L&B _ series and the Amsterdam School of Cultural Analysis. Issues which emerged during the course of investigation deal with questions such as: How could screen-based art be distinguished from other art forms? Could screen-based art theoretically be understood in one definite model or should one search for various possibilities and/or models? Could screen-based art be canonized? What are the physical and theoretical forms of representation for screen-based art? What are the idiosyncratic concepts geared towards screen-based art? This volume includes various arguments, positions, and statements by artists, curators, philosophers, and theorists. The participants are Marie-Luise Angerer, Annette W. Balkema, René Beekman, Raymond Bellour, Peter Bogers, Joost Bolten, Noël Carroll, Sean Cubitt, Cãlin Dan, Chris Dercon, Honoré d'O, Anne-Marie Duquet, Ken Feingold, Ursula Frohne, hARTware curators, Heiner Holtappels, Aernout Mik, Patricia Pisters, Nicolaus Schafhausen, Jeffrey Shaw, Peter Sloterdijk, Ed S. Tan, Barbara Visser and Siegfried Zielinski. (shrink)

The genetic modification of pigs as a source of transplantable organs is one of several possible solutions to the chronic organ shortage. This paper describes existing ethical tensions in xenotransplantation (XTx) that argue against pursuing it. Recommendations for lifelong infectious disease surveillance and notification of close contacts of recipients are in tension with the rights of human research subjects. Parental/guardian consent for pediatric xenograft recipients is in tension with a child’s right to an open future. Individual consent to transplant is (...) in tension with public health threats that include zoonotic diseases. XTx amplifies concerns about justice in organ transplantation and could exacerbate existing inequities. The prevention of infectious disease in source animals is in tension with the best practices of animal care and animal welfare, requiring isolation, ethologically inappropriate housing, and invasive reproductive procedures that would severely impact the well-being of intelligent social creatures like pigs. (shrink)

I claim that Mill has a theory of poetry which he uses to reconcile nineteenth century associationist psychology, the tendency of the intellect to dissolve associations, and the need for educated members of society to desire utilitarian ends. The heart of the argument is that Mill thinks reading poetry encourages us to feel the feelings of others, and thus to develop pleasurable associations with the pleasurable feelings of others and painful associations with the painful feelings of others. Once the associations (...) are developed, they are supported and maintained by our natural capacity for sympathy and by external elements in society, and provide motivation for the pursuit of utilitarian ends. Further, the additional support causes the associations to be strengthened to the extent that they come to be seen as ‘natural and necessary’, and as such are immune from the dissolving force of the intellect. (shrink)

Evaluative studies of inductive inferences have been pursued extensively with mathematical rigor in many disciplines, such as statistics, econometrics, computer science, and formal epistemology. Attempts have been made in those disciplines to justify many different kinds of inductive inferences, to varying extents. But somehow those disciplines have said almost nothing to justify a most familiar kind of induction, an example of which is this: “We’ve seen this many ravens and they all are black, so all ravens are black.” This is (...) enumerative induction in itsfullstrength. For it does not settle with a weaker conclusion (such as “the ravens observed in the future will all be black”); nor does it proceed with any additional premise (such as the statistical IID assumption). The goal of this paper is to take some initial steps toward a justification for the full version of enumerative induction, against counterinduction, and against the skeptical policy. The idea is to explore various epistemic ideals, mathematically defined as different modes of convergence to the truth, and look for one that is weak enough to be achievable and strong enough to justify a norm that governs both the long run and the short run. So the proposal is learning-theoretic in essence, but a Bayesian version is developed as well. (shrink)

Politics, Philosophy & Economics, Volume 21, Issue 2, Page 165-189, May 2022. It is generally acknowledged that a certain amount of state intervention in health and health care is needed to address the significant market failures in these sectors; however, it is also thought that the primary rationale for state involvement in health must lie elsewhere, for example in an egalitarian commitment to equalizing access to health care for all citizens. This paper argues that a complete theory of justice in (...) health can be derived from a commitment to correcting market failure, or in other words promoting Pareto-efficiency, in the domain of health. This approach can address familiar problems around access to care, as well as problems related to resource allocation and rationing, the control of health care costs, and the foundations of public health. Egalitarian theories of justice in health cannot make sense of the depth and pervasiveness of state involvement in health and health care; only a theory rooted in the need to correct market failure can. (shrink)

In the preface to his book God the Problem , Gordon Kaufman writes ‘Although the notion of God as agent seems presupposed by most contemporary theologians … Austin Farrer has been almost alone in trying to specify carefully and consistently just what this might be understood to mean.’.

A critical introduction to the philosophy, cognitive science, and moral psychology of fear.

Two problems are considered here. One relates to who has moral status, and the other relates to who has moral responsibility. The criteria for mattering morally have long been disputed, and many humans and nonhuman animals have been considered “marginal cases,” on the contested edges of moral considerability and concern. The marginalization of humans and other species is frequently the pretext for denying their rights, including the rights to health care, to reproductive freedom, and to bodily autonomy. There is broad (...) agreement across cultural and philosophical traditions about the capacities and responsibilities of moral agents. I propose an inclusive and expansive way of thinking about moral status, situating it not in the characteristics or capacities of individuals, but in the responsibilities and obligations of moral agents. Moral agents, under this view, are not privileged or entitled to special treatment but rather have responsibilities. I approach this by considering some African communitarian conceptions of moral status and moral agency. I propose that moral agency can also be more expansive and include not just individual moral agents but collective entities that have some of the traits of moral agents: power, freedom, and the capacity to recognize and act on the demands of morality and acknowledge and respect the rights of others. Expanding who and what is a moral agent correspondingly extends moral responsibility for respecting rights and fostering the conditions for the health and well-being of humans and animals onto the collective entities who uniquely have the capacity to attend to global-scale health threats such as pandemics and human-caused climate change. (shrink)

Le présent article offre une nouvelle interprétation du concept aristotélicien d' « imagination » ou phantasia par les moyens d'une lecture attentive du Traité de l'âme, III, 3, tout particulièrement de son début. Aristote soutient que ses prédécesseurs ne peuvent expliquer comment l'erreur se produit. Mais c'est également une difficulté pour sa propre explication des formes de base de la perception et de la pensée, et Aristote introduit la phantasia précisément pour répondre à cette question. Il soutient qu'elle ne peut (...) être réduite aux autres états mentaux et offre donc une nouvelle explication causale du contenu, laquelle explique comment un état mental peut être aussi bien vrai que faux. The present article offers a new interpretation of Aristotle's concept of « imagination » or phantasia through a close reading of On the Soul, 3. 3, with special attention to the chapter's opening. Aristotle argues that his predecessors cannot explain how error can ever occur. But it is equally a difficulty for his own account of the most basic types of perception and thought, and Aristotle introduces phantasia precisely to answer this problem. He argues that it cannot be reduced to other mental states and then offers a new causal account of content which explains how a mental state can be either true or false. (shrink)