Ah, Rene - so good to see you. Have you decided if I exist yet?

Hello, Walter - I'm afraid not. I've only just completed my Second Meditation, so I am far from knowing if anything exists, save myself. Real or not, I'm eager to talk to you, however, and share what I have discovered about true perception.

Perception? I assume you refer to that which we know by the senses, such as the aromatic smell from this fine tobacco I'm smoking. Even the Queen is smoking now!

Let's discuss smoking later, Walter. Actually, I believe the senses have nothing to do with true perception.

How can that be? Explain, Rene.

As I was busy in contemplation, I performed an interesting experiment with a piece of beeswax. It was still sweet with honey and smelling of flowers. I could see its size and color. It made a sound when struck. In short, all of my senses told me plainly this was a piece of wax.

Of course, perception comes from the senses.

Let me finish - I then heated the wax until it melted. Now the smell was gone and the taste indistinct. Obviously the size and shape had changed, as the wax was now liquid. All of my senses then told me the substance was something entirely different from what I before called "wax".

Yes, but we all know that solid wax melts into liquid wax.

But do my senses tell me this? If I had no previous knowledge of wax, and was presented on separate occasions with solid and liquid wax, would I know they are the same thing?

I suppose not.

So the senses did not give me this knowledge. Yet, I understand without a doubt that the solid wax I held previously was indeed now liquid wax. You see, it is the mind that perceives, not the senses. The mind knows clearly and distinctly that both substances are wax - this is a clear and distinct mental perception.

Quite interesting. The mind perceives alone, without aid of the senses, for in this case sensory perception would be incorrect.

I think you're having a clear and distinct perception right now, Walter! I have my manuscript right here, if I may quote: "...what must particularly be observed is that its perception is neither an act of vision, nor of touch, nor of imagination, and has never been such although it may have appeared formerly to be so, but only an intuition of the mind, which may be imperfect and confused as it was formerly, or clear and distinct as it is at present, according as my attention is more or less directed to the elements which are found in it, and of which it is composed."

Well spoken, Rene. Shall we conduct a similar experiment now?

Certainly! I have no doubt you will consider tobacco your subject.

What else? Actually, I think we can recreate your argument easily.

Please continue, Walter.

What do the senses tell us about tobacco? I have some fresh leaves in my pouch right here. Ah, they smell as fresh as Virginia. They are pliable to the touch, have a wonderful ruddy brown color, and ever so quietly crackle as I pinch them near my ear. So initially, this is what the senses call "tobacco".

Yes, but what happens when you smoke it?

Well, let's examine what remains here in the bowl of my pipe. What do the senses tell me now? This substance smells of ash, though a lingering aroma of the tobacco remains. The touch is similar to sand - not at all like the fresh leaves before. The color is black and gray, and this dust makes no sound at all when pinched.

So, considering the senses alone, could these two entirely different substances be perceived as the same?

Not at all. However - let me make sure I get this right, Rene - I do have a clear and distinct mental perception that the tobacco leaves and the ash are in fact the same thing, although my senses tell me otherwise.

Exactly - which demonstrates that the nature of true perception is mental. In your mind, you perceive the truth clearly and distinctly! But there is an interesting addition to your version of the experiment, Walter.

What would that be?

In melting the wax, the senses would show that the solid and liquid wax remained at approximately the same weight. Yet I would say that the ash in your pipe weighs less than the weight of your tobacco leaves.

Wonderful! Yet another way the senses would have us perceive that the leaves and the ash are different substances, when we mentally perceive they are the same.

So, if the weight of the ash is subtracted from the weight of the tobacco before smoking, what remains?

The weight that has been lost in the smoking. But how could that weight have been lost?

What is produced is the burning of the tobacco into ash?

Why, the smoke, of course. Enough to fill a room, usually.

So, perhaps the missing weight could be...

The weight of the smoke!

No need to jump to conclusions, Walter. I'm not sure we can truly make that conclusion - it's quite outside of the argument I'm making...

Yes, but I can make that conclusion!

Would you say you have a clear and distinct mental perception of this assumption?

Who cares? Listen, I was just on my way to enjoy smoking with Queen Elizabeth and her courtiers, and I'm sure they would make the same conclusion. In fact, I'll wager on it!

But Walter, you understand this wasn't really the point of our discussion.

Yes, yes. But our discussion is over - I'm afraid I have to go. Tell me, what will you do next?

I plan to prove the existence of God.

I'd much rather prove that the Queen pays off a lost bet.

Labels: papers