 The second question is about the reliability of perceptual justification. If (see Section 2 above), perception per se is a hybrid between sensory stimulation-driven perception and mental imagery, what does this mean for the concept of perceptual justification? Even if sensory stimulation-driven perception can justify beliefs, if mental imagery does not, then the hybrid state of the two, that is, perception per se, may not be as epistemically innocent as it has been thought (MacPherson 2012). Mental imagery is defined precisely by the lack of direct causal link with the sensory input. In any kind of broadly externalist account of justification, this raises worries about the epistemic work that mental imagery can do (as the reliability of mental imagery is supposed to depend on the directness of the causal link between mental imagery and what the mental imagery is about). This does not mean that mental imagery does no epistemic work as the lack of a direct causal link would be compatible with the mental imagery nonetheless carrying information about the external world reliably – and, arguably, this is exactly what happens in the case of amodal completion (Helton and Nanay 2019). But if we take the importance of mental imagery in perception seriously, we need to examine the reliability of these non-direct causal links of mental imagery.