I think therefore I am?

There may be many things that have reality in themselves that we can not experience.

The fact we experience ourselves does not imply we exist physically but even if we are dreaming we exist there must be some sort of "me" to be doing the dreaming.

There are many conditionals that are true by definition or logic. If a straight line segment (line) is the shortest path connecting two points, and a 2D simplex is the 2D shape made with the least lines, then we might say a triangle is a 2D simplex. It might even follow for all possible worlds that a 3D simplex is a triangular pyramid.

If we can show something is true in all possible worlds then we may fairly safely say it is true.

Aristotle and Plato etc spent much time on "forms": things we know must be true about shapes. E.g. Does every shape with 3 points (vertexes) have 3 lines (edges)?

If you think you know it but what you can not know is whether my idea of thinking is the same as yours. If you were a fancy Eliza program you could be writing this email but there would likely be no you as an experiential agent.

I got a HD for this subject at university so email me if you need to discuss this further.

yes it is, rene decartes coined this saying in "meditations"

rene decartes starts off by... being all is false unless its proven true and builds a tree of logic by continuing the pattern...

he analyzes and proves how he exists (iwhich includes your example: thinks) because he establishes gods existence and realized that god wouldnt trick him to thinking his existence is an illusion because this would make god ungod like...etc

i'll give you another example of his style of analyzation... but its original and not decartes

proving gods existence-

some need concrete tangible facts to prove gods existence. the bible isnt enough proof because its man made and has stories that are unfound and unlikely to happen today i.e. separating a river to cross the hebrews to safety.

life and the tangible existence of the fabric of our universe isnt enough either because agnostics may believe that matter could have created itself.

as ppl we will never find the answer.... i personally believe in gods existence through logic because matter or life cant not create itself in my opinion w/o reproduction from already existing stuff.

i feel there was an ideological 1st cause to the rest of the scientific series of events/effects of our existance. nothing can come out of nothing except for a creator concept such as god (our 1st cause to any effect/ kinda like a big bang theory)..

also, im not a real religion follower as i believe it is man made... rene decarte's meditations may be a great read for you

that expression is the answer to the question, "how do i know i exist, as apposed to a character in someones dreams?" after much debate, the conclusion was formed that the fact that you have a conscious is proof enough that you exist, or, "i think therefore i am." sorry if i'm confusing, its really complicated stuff

People who make that statement are affirming their conscious state of existence. So I think they are the same thing. As long as one is aware of his conscious state of existence then it is true.

We can know some things are true when we hear others interact with reality around us. And their perception of reality which is outside my perception of reality is the same. So then we know the circumstance we are in is real and true for each of us.

Edit: For me it is common sense. We know we think when some event makes intelligent sense during any circumstance or state one is in in thought or in life.

yes it is the equivalent. and no, nothing can be known to be true completely. ever.

Thought is real; physical is the illusion

Those two have the same exact meaning you douchebag

yes,yes,cuz,maybe,dunno

yes. think. think more. nope, just think. yes, what? nope, just think.