So there is a distinct definition of Exist you are using there huh? What is it. Forget about the generation of the thoughts, you have rambled that like a broken record. The point is there is no way to prove it is you that generates it, or whatever you declare you to be. Existence is futile.
If this isn't existence, then what is? Existence becomes a meaningless term when you pull the basic axiomatic pillars out from underneath the building of reality. There is really nowhere to start investigating if you define every perceptive qualia as flawed. If it is flawed, it is flawed, but regardless, this existence and set of perceptions is the closest humans are going to get to accessing some kind of aethereal "true existence." Basically, this reality is as real as it is going to get for us. Who knows, maybe "real existence" is just four turtles playing handball on a brick wall which doubles as the back of a grand piano. But since any arbitrarily conjured up piece of speculation like that is backed by no evidence (and couldn't even manifest evidentially even in theory if the senses are too flawed), then it is rendered irrelevant to our lives. Reality is real truly only because we say it is, out of convenience. Same with 2+2. It equals 4 because we say it does and for no other reason. If that were up for debate then getting correct change at a cash register would be an impossible task. What Descartes was saying is basically that the most basic axiomatic assumption we can make is that something, at minimum his own subjective perceptions and thoughts, exists and basically stands in causal relationship with other things. It's circular by default since one needs a starting point either way before deciding to perform any action. Every human makes these assumptions without realizing it. Descartes was just rigorous and analytical enough to break human experience down to its most fundamental axioms and built a theory of reality from there. That doesn't make him a bad philosopher. It just means he defines his starting point of assumptions. What are yours?
"Analyzing it in pieces you notice that it presupposes [an existence] in the middle making the rest of it non-nonsensical, what ever [it] is, states it exists with the [second] word." ergo you are contradicting yourself. you just stated the exact same thing descartes did, now sit down and shut up. because every statement you continue to make will be proof of existence. your argument again is with the structures of our limiting english language. "Existence is futile." 1.you agreed thought exist 2.someone/something must generate these thoughts 3.therefore, someone/something exist -therefore your basis that we can't prove anything exists is fundamentally wrong. for to even discuss existence, you assume your existence with nearly every statement.
I was stating that using that statement presupposes an existence in the first place. [Being Thinks] = [Being is real] Hahaha, of course we exist but not as we perceive us to be. You are too literal. I don't know if you understood me one time, because I had to rephrase what I was saying so much. We are interpreters of information, projecting our own subjective versions of reality for us to navigate. The end? Do you get it? The big picture? That when someone thinks of reality they don't look at the big picture, they think about it subjectively? edit: Statements before were just pointing out the obvious, there is no way to prove we exist such as there is no way to prove God exists.
I don't understand your logic. A thought cannot come from nothing right? There has to be an origin to the thought. I am not trying to prove what that origin might be, I am simply saying that that origin whatever it is can be called "I". Whether some giant creature squid creature floating in outerspace beaming thoughts into the brain, or a spirit of awareness somewhere in the metaphysical world or simply the brain, the thoughts must come from somewhere. I 100% agree that there is no way to prove that we exist the way we perceive ourselves to be. To say that we don't exist altogether though goes against logic.
i was saying you did the same thing. "is" is a present tense verb. meaning now, current, existing. so to even use is you are saying "i exist". because it's been a longgg time since i have been in grammar class i will let dictionarydotcom tell you "is- verb; 3rd person singular present indicative of be." meaning, using is shows (indicates) existence indicative of be. indicative of being. indicative of existing. you make the exact same 'error' descartes did. this guy hit what i was trying to say on the head, just using a lot prettier words.