Only intuition, whatever that is. There are no words that can satisfy certainty because anyone’s beliefs are ultimately grounded in their own intuition.

The more I read about Cogito Ergo Sum, the less I understand existence.

Descartes presupposed I; he took existence as a starting point to prove existence. In doing so, he failed.

All I want to know is that I exist. I want to know that my thoughts are my own. But I have found nothing that proves certainty.

Anyone help? — Kranky

I thought we covered this in the other thread..... perhaps not.

Perhaps you misunderstand what philosophy is or perhaps in this case what philosophy is not.

Philosophy provides ideas and guidelines, it does not produce certainty and proofs about personal matters or in fact any matter beyond a formal system.

If you are still troubled by questions regarding your own existence I suggest you consult a psychologist, or psychiatrist; or perhaps your mother would be a good place to start.

I can be certain that something exists, and that something is aware.

All else leads on from this, with less and less certainty.

Descartes did not presuppose the existence of "I". He experienced his thought and that gave rise to the inescapable, irrefutable truth, that he exists; because thoughts can only be thought by thinkers, and if there is no thinker, there is definitely no thought. So the thinker exists, because the thought exists.

This is the biggest thing in the history of all thought. An empirical thing can be proven to be an a priori truth, taking experience (empirical evidence) into consideration.

A philosophical x-over hit, to borrow the term from popular music critics.

The proof is only meaningless to those who can't think. Literally. And I daresay, also figuratively.

Philosophy provides ideas and guidelines, it does not produce certainty and proofs about personal matters or in fact any matter beyond a formal system. — A Seagull

Completely agreed!

The 'I' is not a presupposition. It is an affirmation of that which is, and cannot be denied.
The meaning attached to the 'I' is what is usually presupposed. The 'I' never needs any of the types of qualifications that it is given. It is, essentially, always itself by itself and for itself. Basically, "I... AM".

Descartes did not presuppose the existence of "I". He experienced his thought and that gave rise to the inescapable, irrefutable truth, that he exists; — god must be atheist

In reality, Descartes did not think that the cogito was a truth of experience in the usual sense of the term. It was a rational intuition that I think and that if I think it is rationally impossible for me not to exist. The negation of the cogito ergo sum would be a blatant contradiction.

Of course, the existence of the ego says nothing about what I am. Therefore, Descartes began his questionable way to the existence of the world with an unjustified deduction: If I am thinking, I am a thinking substance. This is not as evident in itself as the cogito.

I do believe that consciousness exists internally w/o external reference. I believe there are (at least) two major problems/flaws w/ the cogito and solipsism (beyond the presumption of 'I'), that is they assume two things which break down in their framework. That is, they false define/assume what 'Thinking' actually is, and they mistake what cognitive agency is all about. Also, I believe there many levels of consciousness, which also depend of your level of cognitive development in an external world (or not). In my current framework, it is a complete illusion and misnomer to talking about 'thinking' implying 'existing' of anything. For example, among others, the existence of agency requires creative intention and the control of the flow and nature of the thought. In this aspect, I like looking for intentionality, but I would direct it internally and add a few (maybe at least 2) other dynamic requirements to establish one's existence as an "I" without presupposing it.

Under my current framework, to establish one’s self-consciousness we have to be able to explore all our boundary conditions that ware resonating within and their nature must be accessible/determinable wrt their form, function, or purpose in influencing the landscape that the consciousness agent in question is resonating with and within. Then, the consciousness agent in question would have to observe a time-evolution history path where their ‘thought’ could in-fact modify those boundary conditions and that had a correlated, esp. if *expected*, effect on their conscious state of being to ‘feel’ they are alive and the executive center of the (resonating) system. Then, the consciousness agent in question would have to learn and use those associations as tools to manipulate itself (the best it can) to achieve goal states of being. Towards a definition qualia consciousness, I’m thinking that the degree that the consciousness agent in question can do the above, it has ever higher orders of qualia "I" consciousness.

All I want to know is that I exist. — Kranky

Out of curiosity, why?
What difference would it make if the truth of that bit was knowable one way or the other?

I agree with the prior post about thinking not implying existing, and as it turns out, it doesn't matter to me or what values I hold.

If you are still troubled by questions regarding your own existence I suggest you consult a psychologist, or psychiatrist; or perhaps your mother would be a good place to start. — A Seagull

If only Descartes would have done so.

Descartes presupposed I; he took existence as a starting point to prove existence. In doing so, he failed. — Kranky

You are mistaken in two fundamental ways. First, Descartes did not take "existence as a starting point." Instead, he took his "existence as a starting point." And second, he did not take his existence as a starting point "to prove existence." Instead, he took his existence as a starting point precisely because it was the only thing the existence of which he did not have to prove.

only an existing being can doubt. your doubt proves your existence.

In reality, Descartes did not think that the cogito was a truth of experience in the usual sense of the term. It was a rational intuition that I think and that if I think it is rationally impossible for me not to exist. The negation of the cogito ergo sum would be a blatant contradiction. — David Mo

I agree. Your position is supported by Descartes characterization of the res cogitans and the res extensa as distinct and self sufficient substances. It is referred to as Cartesian dualism for a reason. Never the twain shall meet.