Do individuals know with certainty that they exist?
Or simply that thoughts exist?

So it's certain I exist? So why do people say Descartes was wrong?

Anyone else got a thought on this?

Anyone?

But this 'evidence' that you talk of, if that's not certain in itself and can therefore be doubted, how is anything more likely than unlikely?

How do you know? Because you have conscious thoughts?
Couldn't it be that thoughts could possible without a thinker? Why must it be that they require an actor? Just because it's logical, doesn't mean it is certain.

I'm just confused.
You're saying that I exist for certain? And that the conscious thoughts that I 'appear' to have are happening without a doubt?

So it's certain that I exist? And it is certain that my thoughts are happening?
How can anyone be sure of that?

But Descartes presupposed that 'I' exists.

Nietzsche and others have suggested thoughts can exist without a thinker. Perhaps in a way that 'we' cannot understand or fathom. Perhaps in a way in which logic cannot determine. But can we say with certainty that we exist? Not in my eyes.

So Descartes suggesting that 'I think, therefore I am', only proves that he would be thinking IF he existed. But it does not go any further than that.

But Descartes only proved that thoughts exist?
He did not prove that there had to be a thinker?

It is, in my mind (pun intended), preposterous to suggest that probability can used to suggest I'm more likely to exist, if nothing can be proven at all.

I do not understand how probability can be used by others to suggest something is more likely that unlikely. Anyone any ideas?

But how does probability help things? I cannot see beyond me existing and not existing as being equally plausible.