Descartes said:"I think thence I exist"; so entities that don't think, don't exist ?

Answer 1

Your logic is flawed.
If your method of thinking was correct then following line of reasoning may be correct as well:
"If It is raining -- my driveway gets wet,
It is not raining right now --so my driveway is not wet"

But that is clearly wrong, because you driveway can be wet from watering the plants!

In general your fallacy is called:
"denying the antecedent"[1]

Answer 2

The answer to your question is in simple logic, I can't remember the name of the property at work; but in essence the statement only works one claim, the claim is: I think therefore I exist. It only moves in that direction, the subject is the "I" and that is all. The question that you have regarding entities that don't think would only be addressed if Descartes said something like "All things that exist must think". The subject here would be "all things" which isn't the claim that Descartes makes, therefore simplifying his comment to only refer to himself. (I realize that this is a rather complicated response, it would have been helpful if I remembered the name of the logical process at work, sorry.)

Answer 3

An entity is a thing that exists. Your computer is an entity. So is your computer table. Neither thinks, but both exist.
It's difficult to know precisely what Descartes meant by his statement, but to me, it has always carried the thought that because he could think, he could exist. He could imagine, therefore he could exist. He could remember, therefore he could exist.
Without the ability to do these things, his existence would be unbearable.
It somewhat hinges on your definition of existing. If to exist is merely to be alive, then the quotation makes no sense. If existing is a sense of fullness, of being expanded to the ultimate degree, then it does.
At least, that's my interpretation of it.

Answer 4

That wasn't the goal of his Methods of doubt. Descartes was trying to establish an indisputable ground for knowledge. His "Cogito, ergo sum." was his declaration that even if an evil being was deceiving him, he was a thinking being, and he couldn't be doubting his own existence. For one to doubt their own existence is impossible. You must exist to doubt.( Doubito, ergo sum)I doubt, therefore I am. From this point, Descartes could be up his epistemology, confident in its foundation. That is where foundationism first originated.

Answer 5

Descartes was directing the statement only to himself and was proposing that from his perspective it could be said that nothing else existed apart from himself. He then went on to say that as there was a God then it followed that other things could exist.

So Decartes was saying that only he existed. Nothing else, thinking or unthinking for him existed.

Answer 6

I don't think that was Descartes meant when he said that. I think what he actually meant was that thinking was the only way he could prove his own existence.

Answer 7

I think it's a matter of realization and awareness. Entities which are not capable of performing complex thought processes are simply not aware of their existence, philosophically speaking.

Answer 8

Yeah, as others have said above, your question is an invalid argument, (DA) denying the antecedent. If you've taken Introduction to Philosophy, it is now time to take Introduction to Logic.

Answer 9

My dear brother....read the below quote.

"What eventually lies at the end of it is rather a simple idea not a complex equation nor a supremely philosophical truth..which all
souls have utterly failed to understand"

"To reach that day and realize it ..all would exclaim..what else
it could have been!!"

Answer 10

everyone thinks.. and he said " I think therefore I am"

It does not pertain to existence, but you as a person.