The 'I' is the weakness in this statement. It is not 100 percent certain that the person thinking is you. — Beverley

I think it is

Thank you for your reply. Are you not even certain about being a conscious entity? Isn't being a conscious entity an undeniable and self-evident fact? Of course, you can't prove to others that you are conscious. Just as I can't prove to others that I am conscious. From your point of view, you can't tell whether I am a conscious entity or a philosophical zombie. Just as from my point of view, I can't tell whether you are a conscious entity or a philosophical zombie. Are you not even certain about typing in English? Surely, you can be certain that you are not typing in Japanese or another language?

Thank you for your reply. I think we are all blundering through existence. Many people convince themselves that their religion is the true one but that doesn't make it true. Life is a roller coaster to death. We are put on it when we are conceived without our consent and we can't get off it until we are dead. Good luck with the rest of your existence.

Thank you for your reply. It's possible you are right. I don't know and I can't know. Why would I limit myself and put myself through all the suffering? Surely an all-knowing and all-powerful being won't be masochistic? I hate being alive. I wish I never existed. I can't even end my life as that would harm my family.

What is the "I"? That seems to me to be the root of the problem. What even is "certainty"?


This is not a perfect thought experiment but the point might still be there.

What if eons ago, humans created an exercise with breathing, one which became socialized into each offspring, such that it became second nature. For e.g., what if with each breath, is the thought I am breathing. Such that today, we believe breathing involves the will, even if subtly.

Can you conceive of that creating the following:

1. I breathe therefore I am
2. How do I breathe in deep sleep? There must be two beings, the one which breathes with volition; and the Body breathing. My Body is one thing, but my breath must be a Spirit which is coming and going with the air.

And so on.

Is it really evident that there is any being, let alone the Real Being, "I" at the source of thinking?

Or, you know what? Forget that admittedly shitty thought experiment.
Alter it.

What if the same exercise took place and was socialized etc. for 200 millenia, but humans never developed language of any kind.

Would we still be faced with, I breathe therefore I am? How do I breathe in deep sleep? Is the "locus" of my Being in the Body which carries on breathing, autonomously in sleep, or in the I who breathe willfully?

Of course not, there wouldn't be an I, a Body, sleep, or multigenerational exercise, etc.


The things we believe with 100% certainty, are contingent upon the use/existence of Language. In fact, I submit, they are ultimately just constructions.


The 100% certainty is something more like, Body breathes, eats, bonds, mates, thus Body is. But of course that too is both expressed and formulated by Language.


"Certainty," itself is a fiction.


The Truth is in the Body being without attention paid to the I or the I's supposed certainty.

Differently from many and from Russell, I don't see a specific problem with the "I" in "I think therefore I am". Even within the context of the hyperbolic doubt, there are some good reasons to estipulate an "I". And outside that context, it is evidently non-problematic.

Are you not even certain about typing in English? Surely, you can be certain that you are not typing in Japanese or another language? — Truth Seeker

I cannot even be 100 percent sure that there is such a thing as Japanese or English, or languages. 100 percent certainty is a strange concept because there is no evidence of such a thing in the known universe, as far as I can tell. But if someone can offer proof of something being 100 percent certain with no possible room for any doubt whatsoever, then I'd be interested to hear about it.

Now, do I BELIEVE that I am typing Japanese? No. Of course, I cannot say for sure, but I think it is unlikely. (I'd be really impressed with myself if I was! ;) ) But do I believe that there is such a thing as 100 percent certainty? To me, it seems so unlikely, simply because I see no evidence of it. Therefore, it could just as easily be something we made up in our minds, as real as a unicorn or griffin, but more powerful than that because it is something many people really desperately want, such as Descartes, which is evidenced by the extremes he put himself through to try to prove it. Of course, he didn't. He simply convinced himself that he did because he wanted it so much because uncertainty, particularly in times of great change like he was living through at the time, is unnerving.

The 'I' is the weakness in this statement. It is not 100 percent certain that the person thinking is you.
— Beverley

I think it is — flannel jesus

'Think' being the operative word here. You may believe it is, but belief is not 100 percent proof or certainty. It is impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is not someone, or thing, else making you believe the thoughts are yours. In that case, you cannot say, 'I think', and since the cogito only works from the first person perspective, it fails. The 'thing' controlling the thoughts that you perceive of as coming from you could be the evil demon that Descartes spoke of, or pretty much anything. It doesn’t even have to be a being. You could be like a computer controlled by the forces of the universe. There are just so many possibilities of what COULD be happening regarding the thoughts you perceive of. (I wrote a paper on this but had to cut out LOADS of it because I was coming up with so many different possible scenarios that the paper was thousands of words over the word limit! lol) This is why 100 percent certainty is so problematic, because, since it demands such precision, it opens itself up to the smallest of possibilities.

I personally do not think I am a computer, or the made up thoughts of an evil demon, but there is no way of 100 percent proving otherwise. But let's just say that I am the thoughts of an evil being who is creating the illusion that is my life, I cannot worry about this because I would drive myself insane. I guess if this became apparent at any point, then I would deal with it then, or maybe I would simply disappear. Maybe when the illusion is broken, there is no more me, or there never was because I am the illusion. But anyway, for now, I am pretty happy to believe in the illusion, if it is one.

I don't think it is worth being concerned about, nor is the idea that there is no 'I' at the foundations of 'my' experince. — Tom Storm

I come to the same conclusion.

Much of what we know is probabilistic, i.e., I know based on inductive reasoning. E.g., I know my car will start tomorrow morning, and I know I will probably wake up tomorrow morning. Much of science is probabilistic knowledge.

What I know absolutely or with absolute certainty are things that many people have already mentioned. For example, I know that I'm sitting here in my office typing with 100% certainty. A doubt here wouldn't even make sense. There are millions or even billions of conscious things we do that we know with absolute certainty. This is not to say that people don't express doubts about these things, it's just that certain doubts people express aren't reasonable or justifiable.

The 'thing' controlling the thoughts that you perceive of as coming from you could be the evil demon that Descartes spoke of, or pretty much anything — Beverley

And even if that's true, you're still "perceiving thoughts" and therefore you still are. So the conclusion "I am" still follows, even if "I think" actually just means "I'm perceiving thoughts that are put in my head" (which I have no problem describing as "I think").

I agree with you.

The body could be part of a simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion. What is 100% certainly real is the experience of being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience - the actual experience of what it is like to be me - nanosecond by nanosecond. Not all truths can be proven but that does not make them any less true. For example, I can’t prove to you that I am conscious but that does not mean that I am not conscious. You may think that I am a philosophical zombie but I assure you that I am conscious even though I can't prove it to you. Just as you are conscious even though you can't prove it to me.

If you want to learn more about breathing, please see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880533

I agree.

I agree.

I disagree. My body could be part of a simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion. What is 100% certainly real is the experience of being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience - the actual experience of what it is like to be me - nanosecond by nanosecond. Not all truths can be proven but that does not make them any less true. For example, I can’t prove to you that I am conscious but that does not mean that I am not conscious. You may think that I am a philosophical zombie but I assure you that I am conscious even though I can't prove it to you. Just as you are conscious even though you can't prove it to me.

So the conclusion "I am" still follows — flannel jesus

Not if the thoughts are not yours. As other philosophers pointed out long ago, you cannot say, "I think" if the thoughts are not yours. This is just one of the many arguments, however, that throw doubt on the cogito. I'd find some links, but I'm travelling at the moment. I'll find some later :)

Not if the thoughts are not yours. — Beverley

Yes, even if the thoughts "aren't yours". In order to perceive thoughts handed to you externally, you first must *exist*.

I disagree. My body could be part of a simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion. What is 100% certainly real is the experience of being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience. — Truth Seeker

Your opinion/belief is valid, but you cannot (well, you can if you like, but it won't be true) say that something is 100 percent certain without 100 percent proof, which you cannot provide. I was just saying though, this is just one of many arguments against the cogito.

Yes, even if the thoughts "aren't yours". In order to perceive thoughts handed to you externally, you first must *exist*. — flannel jesus

Not necessarily, you could be JUST thought, but even if we take that to be true, as mentioned, the cogito only works from the first person perspective, therefore, if the thoughts are not yours, you cannot say "I think".

you could be — Beverley

yeah, in other words "I am". You've not figured out a way around the "I am" part of it, and you're stretching quite hard.

No problem, you are entitled to your belief :)

I disagree for reasons already explained. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything.

I'm probably not explaining it very clearly. I'll find some links from other philosophers to help you understand the counter arguments. Of course, you may not believe them, I'm not sure I do either, but they do throw doubt on 100 percent certainty.

I disagree for reasons already explained. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything. — Truth Seeker

Not a problem at all. It would be a really boring world if we all agreed with everything ;)

Could you define what "truth" and "certainty" is? That would help clarifying what you have been asking in the OP.

I notice that this is an old OP, so maybe you might have already done so. But just to refresh memories, defining the key concepts and confirming would make sense.

Truth is whatever is real. From my point of view, my sentience is real. Certainty is the confidence I have about my knowledge about what is real. For example, I am completely certain that I am sentient. I am not completely certain about whether I am a solipsistic soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience - the actual experience of what it is like to be me - nanosecond by nanosecond. Not all truths can be proven but that does not make them any less true. For example, I can’t prove to you that I am conscious but that does not mean that I am not conscious. You may think that I am a philosophical zombie but I assure you that I am conscious even though I can't prove it to you. Just as you are conscious even though you can't prove it to me. If you don't know what a philosophical zombie is, then please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

I am 100% certain that I am conscious but it is not possible for me to know with 100% certainty that my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe actually exist. — Truth Seeker

You are merely wrong. We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%. That would require perfection. Even if you think you know, or believe you know, you do not know. Knowing requires what might be referred to as god-like will, god-like awareness, and god-like being; all three at the same time.

We delude ourselves into this 'knowing' thing. We draw 'conclusions'. But these words are wrong words, immoral in their meanings. The actual meanings are wholly contained only in the single point of perfection.

We do not know properly. We believe only. This is a tautology.
We do not conclude properly. We non-conclude properly, only. There is more work to be done.

I perceive my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe. — Truth Seeker

No, you do not perceive these things. You believe that you do. There is a marked difference. Speaking and writing correctly is difficult, but, ... better.

It is possible that what I perceive is either a dream or a hallucination or an illusion or a simulation and not objectively real. — Truth Seeker

I would say that this statement is much closer to your 'knowing' than the others have been. It is indeed a hallucination, but, that situation was not inflicted upon you. It was chosen by you, incorrectly. And it will continue to be so. The hope is that you grow through suffering (the only way) to earn wisdom and approach truth/perfection.

We are incapable of objectivity. To be honest with oneself one must say instead 'We are TRYING to be objective (and we are trying to be aware that we will fail). This continual try takes effort and that is the basic path of moral choice, EFFORT.

It is also possible that my perceived reality is actually real, but I have no way of knowing this with 100% certainty. Given the fact that I cannot know with 100% certainty what is objectively real, how can I know what is morally correct with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker

You cannot know. And that aim, to know, is darkly improper as a stance. Approach knowing with the belief that you cannot arrive. This is better.

Does quantum indeterminacy prevent macroscopic determinism? — Truth Seeker

Yes, the fundamental nature of reality is neither order nor chaos, but both in flux and balance at the same time. There is no contradiction.

Quantum superposition does not create macroscopic superposition. When one tosses a coin, either the head or the tail ends up on the top but not both. How can we know if macroscopic determinism is true or false with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker

In tracking the suggested answers I have offered you will realize I would say again, we cannot know. The need to know is foolish. The need to become more aware is wise. It is a matter of perspective.

"You are merely wrong. ... It is indeed a hallucination, but, that situation was not inflicted upon you. It was chosen by you, incorrectly." How do you know that I am merely wrong? How do you know that it is a hallucination? How do you know that it was chosen by me? How do you know that it is incorrect?

I think that the statement "I think, therefore I am." is incorrect. The correct statement is "I am, therefore I am."

Truth is whatever is real. From my point of view, my sentience is real. — Truth Seeker

What is real?

Certainty is the confidence I have about my knowledge about what is real. — Truth Seeker

What is your confidence on your knowledge? For instance, does God exist? How did the universe begin? Are you confident on all the answers on these questions?
If your confidence was just your feeling, then can you be confident on the certainty?

I am not completely certain about whether I am a solipsistic soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul. — Truth Seeker

Confidence is one's feelings and emotions on something. If your ground for certainty is based on your own feeling and emotion of confidence on your knowledge, then all your knowledge seem prone to be fallible.

↪Chet Hawkins "You are merely wrong. ... It is indeed a hallucination, but, that situation was not inflicted upon you. It was chosen by you, incorrectly."
- Chet Hawkins

How do you know that I am merely wrong? How do you know that it is a hallucination? How do you know that it was chosen by me? How do you know that it is incorrect? — Truth Seeker

I know nothing. Apparently, you did not read for comprehension.

I believe you are wrong. I believe it's a hallucination. I believe that you chose it. And I believe it (your premise) is incorrect.

If you say you know or even that knowing is your goal, it is my belief that this false knowing that can only be belief will lead you astray. Further, I believe that the central issue with your paragraph post was indeed the precise point I am making here. Knowing is an immoral aim in some senses.

"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but, certainty is absurd!" - Voltaire

I think that the statement "I think, therefore I am." is incorrect. The correct statement is "I am, therefore I am." — Truth Seeker

There are in fact nine permutated equivalent statements at least:

I think therefore I am. Enneatype 5
I want therefore I am. Enneatype 4
I want therefore I think. Enneatype 2
I think therefore I want. Enneatype 7
I am therefore I think. Enneatype 1
I am therefore I want. Enneatype 8

The three reflexive ones are there as well:
I am therefore I am. Enneatype 9
I think therefore I think. Enneatype 6
I want therefore I want. Enneatype 3