"I think therefore I am?"..... What is wrong with this assumption?

Question

Just because there is an awareness of 'thought'. Does that also Prove the existenxe of an 'I' an individual being having that thought?
Really it should say:
"There is an awareness of thinking, Therefore there is thinking".

NOTHING ELSE HAS BEEN OBSERVED.

Teireo:
Can 'awareness' of something prove it is real? I'm aware of the plate of spagetti that I am imagining right now.

Why does it prove that YOU exist?
Maybe it proves that something exists?
What does it prove exists?

"If 'you' think" "If 'you' have consciousness of being"
The 'you' was NOT observed, neither was .being', only the process of thinking.

Answer 1

Should be-" I'm pink therefore I'm Spam"

Answer 2

Assuming you are looking for a serious and logical answer to your question....

Q: I think therefore I am?"..... What is wrong with this assumption?

A: I would say there is nothing wrong with this assumption if you treat the " I am " simply as a form of identity or a property of identity. Lets say "I think I am pretty, therefore I am pretty", whats wrong with this statement? NOTHING! "I think I am a bird, therefore i am a bird". Whats wrong with this statement? Again, NOTHING. The statement says nothing about the need for anyone other than yourself (the "I") to determine the "form" of "am". Hope this makes sense.

I think what descarte really said was, 'I think therefore I EXIST". So whats the difference between this statement and the last one?

The logic of the statement is that the "I" comes before the "existence" of I, this is of course impossible. If my existence came from the "I think" then who was that " I"?? that "I" couldn't possibly have been "me" since I didn't exist before my existence.

That said, there is one thing that is rarely mentioned about this statement (in fact i think its never been mentioned in this category).

If you treat the "I exist" as a confirmation for the existence of the concept "I" and not as the physical existence of I, then the statement would still make sense. Why?

the concept of " I " is not really a "natural concept". In a society like ours that places alot of emphasis on individualism, the word " I " is frequently used to refer back to the 'self' which is the "real me" doing the thinking. Although that "real me" doesn't necssarily have the same attributes and meaning as the greedy and selfish " I ". Does this sound confusing to you?

Think about this, what if the I was really a plural and not a singular 'thing'??

Answer 3

It was a brilliant conclusion when you recall what Descartes did to reach it.

To establish existence, Rene Descartes systematically refuted the infallibility of all the human senses until he was left with the only thing he could not refute - thought itself. And concluded "I think therefore I am".

It is only through a process of dialectic which brings out the mind/body duality that Descartes critics pointed out that while the brain obviously exists, the existence of thought (or the mind) was not proven by Descartes method.

Answer 4

You have asked a hard question, one that cannot be answered with a few sentences.
I personally don't think there is something wrong with it. I believe that what Descartes meant is that you cannot say that you don't exist when you are testing the fact if you exist.
Now, I am not saying that such a phrase is correct, what i am saying is that it has way to many vulnerable spots open to discussion, but the essence remains the same:
If you think, if you have conscience of being, then you exist.

Answer 5

You don't think, maybe? Or didn't study Descartes? It's an a priori statement - a "given" necessary to the argument. Like in an arithmetic problem, "a farmer has three chickens and two docks..."

Well, maybe he doesn't, but if we're going to get through this problem, that's what we're gonna say.

Answer 6

What is wrong is that even if you don't think you still are. Most of the time people don't think, they just work on instinct.
A historical error: but someone fixed it

" I AM therefore i will THINK"

Answer 7

The unstated premise is that only beings who exist can think. It's further based on the premise that something that doesn't exist can't do anything, thus if you're doing something you exist. I see nothing wrong with that premise.

Answer 8

nothing
the fact that you think proves the fact that you exist. That is the only thing you can be sure of- everything else, all the perceived world may or may not exst. It MAY be real or else it just MIGHT be some form of self-induced "Matrix" environment

Answer 9

Nothing, as far as I can see. Sartre merely states that since he is aware of his own thoughts, that HIS is the only existance of which he can be sure. EVERYONE else may only be illusion.

"I yam what I yam, an' that's all that I yam."

Popeye the Sailor Man

Answer 10

How do we know we are here? We might not exist at all?
This is getting heavy for me - so off to bed I go! My contacts
know I havn't been sleeping well lately!

Answer 11

Nothing, unless you don't think you're thinking. Self doubt in wether or not you are thinking could ultimatley lead to a false notion that you don't actually exist.

Of course self doubt is a result of (negative) thinking. So it precedes the notion that you cannot think.