 In addition, he says to Mesland that “our mind is finite and so created as to be able to perceive as possible things which God has wished to be in fact  possible.”[26]  The interpretive issue here is what Descartes is talking about when he speaks in such terms. One interpretation that immediately suggests itself is that Descartes holds that there are things or states of affairs that, though not actual, are counterfactually  possible.[27]  A number of considerations speak in favor of such a reading. One is that Descartes’ view that mind and body are really distinct appears to be the view that minds and bodies that are in fact united can exist  apart.[28]  Another is that Descartes says that we have clear and distinct perceptions of possible existence and of what is possible, thus making it appear that he holds that God’s creatures include not only actuals but also unactualized  possibles.[29]  Finally, this sort of reading fits Descartes within a long tradition of figures like Scotus and Bradwardine who posit possible being to secure the meaning and reference of claims about things that could be but  aren’t.[30]  If Descartes wants to make claims about unactualized possibles and if he does not want those claims to be non-sensical, unactualized possibles need to have some kind of ontological status in his system.