 How, then, do unbounded doubt interpreters deal with this passage? In context, the point of the natural light passage is not to draw a distinction between two grades of clear and distinct perception; it’s instead to clarify the distinction between the kind of probabilistic reasoning the meditator had invoked in prior remarks, and the irresistible evidentness accompanying our very best cognitions, such as the cogito. We can indeed take the point of the passage to apply to moments of careful attention: even while directly attending to the probabilistic matters (taught by nature), we recognize that there are grounds for doubt; whereas, when directly attending to our epistemically best cognitions (revealed by the natural light), we simply cannot doubt them. This reading renders the passage continuous with our reading of the other passages. Again, in the pivotal fourth paragraph of the Third Meditation: “when I turn to the things themselves which I think I perceive very clearly, I am so convinced by them that I spontaneously declare: let whoever can do so deceive me, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I continue to think I am something”; i.e., while directly attending to them, the matters revealed by the natural light “cannot in any way be open to doubt.” And yet, upon diverting attention, they fall prey to the Evil Genius Doubt.