I think therefore I am

God

Parmenides: 'the same thing are being and thinking'

DESCARTES IS A FRAUD

explain the difference between core concepts of subantances and modes in Descartes and Spinoza. Quick fuckers

So, it is okay to have a 'proof' that doesn't work 1/3 of time?
Imagine if scientists 'proved' a theory by showing that it produces predictable results 66% of time, would that be accepted?

But every time I think that is a sufficient proof that I exist. Not only 66% of the times.

>I think therefore I am, pham
>Oh yeah? Did you exist from 2AM to 7 AM last night?
>Yes
>But you didn't think at that time
>However I totally exist now senpaitachi
>That doesn't make any sense. Are you claiming to leap in and out of existence? Otherwise your proof is flimsy at best

Maybe I do flip in and out of existence. How an I supposed to know?

The same way I know you are a faggot. Logic.

>believing you cease to think just because your'e asleep

stay plen

Then use this logic to figure out a simple thing a guy said 400 years ago.

You see a black raven on tuesday. You know at least one black raven exists, every day of the week, even though you only saw it on tuesday.

Why are brainlets only able to make these sorry arguments through analogy?

>2017
>denying the antecedent

They're literally teenagers, dude.

>implying you don't dream
>implying you don't think within your dreams
>implying you're to stupid to realize you just forgot your dreams

The whole point is that it's I think therefore I KNOW I exist, it's the only thing you can know with certainty.

I never sleep because sleep is the cousin of death

>because
Honky

>be dumb frogposter
>dont think
>dont exist
im a ghost desu

I have a problem with "I" in that statement
>I think therefore SOMETHING exists
seems more appropriate. Certainly, the realisation of awareness necessarility leads to a kind of consciousness, but I have no proof that this consciousness is I. The "I" could be nothing more than a passive receiver that echoes mental impulses like a wall sounds. At the least, to distinguish I and not-I, I need to know of not-I, but I can't know of not-I because my thinking only leads me to I.

It just means, "I can be sure that I exist because I think". When you're asleep, the question is irrelevant. When you're awake, you think, therefore you can be sure that you (the subject) exist(s)

Consciousness can exist without self-awareness. The fact that you are self-aware creates the "I". In this sense the definition of "I" is something that is self-aware. "I" is by definition self-aware. If you are aware of yourself as "I" that means you are self-aware.

>making a circle for non-existence
Kinda defeats the point desu

Why? As and point out there are things that are beyond such simple dichotomies.