If you don't exit. How did you post your question on this forum ? :grin:

I may only think I have though. Equally I may not exist but the thought itself does?

The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

Agreed. But certainly of self? Or just of thought?

Ourselves and our thoughts. The certainty of the self is also a thought.

Your question is interesting and existence is a very touchy topic. I think in order to build conclusions, we need to take certain facts or "common sense" views as trivially true. But since philosophy demands even questioning them. The result is that we end up talking about things that do not have a lot meaning besides being word play.

Do thoughts require a thinker? — Kranky

Kind of by definition, yes. I think it safe to use such a definition.

If they do, and thoughts occur, then I exist?

Doesn't follow the way it is worded.
Give the above definition, try: "if thoughts exist, then the thinker exists". That seems to work for any definition of 'exists' one cares to use.

Sounds like mysticism.

Thoughts require a thinker. If thinking, I'm the thinker. And I exist at that time.

It doesn't prove what I is, I is associated.

I'm suggesting there are more things to consider about I.

I can knuckle it down to is mind good for I, yes, and agree with you at most.

There is an argument, that thinking is a conscious activity, and thoughts may come without conscious activity (as a dream for example), therefore thoughts do not require conscious activity. If this is the case, then the relationship between "thought" and "thinking", which makes thought the past tense of thinking, implying that a "thought" requires a prior "thinking", is an improperly constructed relationship.

What is at issue here is the fact that thinking requires subject matter, something which is thought about, and the subject matter is generally believed to be thoughts. But this makes thoughts prior to, as required for thinking, such that thoughts cannot be the product of thinking, in any absolute sense. The classical resolution to this problem is to assign to the subject matter of thinking, a different name, like "Idea". Now the Idea is prior to the act of thinking, as the required subject matter, and the implication that thinking is prior to thought, by definition, is avoided.

Do thoughts require a thinker?

If they do, and thoughts occur, then I exist?
But if a thought can exist without a thinker, then I may not? — Kranky

Thoughts may not require a thinker just as lightwaves don't require a medium.

What is at issue here is the fact that thinking requires subject matter, something which is thought about, and the subject matter is generally believed to be thoughts. — Metaphysician Undercover

That would be thinking about thought as compared/contrasted to thinking about something other than thought.

The term "require" is being used nonsensically if one says thought does not require a thinker. If "require" means existentially dependent upon, then it ought be obvious that all thought requires a thinker.

Do thoughts require a thinker?
If they do, and thoughts occur, then I exist?
But if a thought can exist without a thinker, then I may not? — Kranky

1. Not necessarily.
2. No, you only think you exist.
3. There is no "I" that exists except as a thought, a story of identity, and it is not valid. That is why the ego/self always seeks validity, to make itself seem real.

One can be conscious without using the self/I to think. When this happens, all that is left is what is true, and consciousness of the truth becomes expresses as thoughts and feelings.

It could mean, I think, therefore I have free will rather than no free will.

I'm looking up left sometimes and it's just an illusion because it was totally different in action from what is control. I don't think is an argument.

Thoughts do indeed require an original thinker. Nothing can come from nothing. One can not have absolute clarity regarding the identity of such a 'thinker', though common sense would suggest that your existence is validated by your doubting of that very existence. As Descartes once said: cogito ergo sum. In more literal/scientific terms: thoughts are the byproducts of a conscious mind.

However, I am intrigued by alternative opinions on this matter, so I will pose a question: if thoughts were to exist without a thinker, how might they do so and from whence?

If they do, and thoughts occur, then I exist? — Kranky

Before even being in a position to question one's existence as a 'thinker' by virtue of 'thinking' I think there are at least 3 prerequisites: 1. (self)consciousness and 2. some internal context/framework that 'you' as a consciousness cognitive agent ('thinker') can sense as operate within, and 3. the thinker's thoughts must have the ability to observe control/affect of it. A consciousness concluding it exists must have a need a framework to understand itself and what the answer would mean to itself, apart from external reference points. Like seeing one's self in the mirror, pinching your skin to feel the causal connection, hurting yourself to feel the pain, stopping your thought to prove your self-agency, etc.

More generally, I'd say the only reason why we believe in our own consciousness as being real and existing is because we have no strong experiential evidence to the contrary. In my current model, consciousness is a resonant condition within the internal and external boundaries the “I” operates within. However, the self-awareness aspect of experiential/qualia consciousness also tracks the time evolution of this resonant consciousness wave function (currently, I’m modelling that as a quantum pilot wave) and we call that (quantum knot) history as defining our unique thinking existence as a coherent, self-consistent emanation of the same consciousness cognitive agent, so we are completely calling that time evolved resonant wave pattern the “I” ‘story’ and concluding that we exist at least as a thinking being. This is at least one way that I believe Descartes gets it wrong. For example, in brain with a multiple personality disorder, I’d says that they do not have a single resonant consciousness wave function that collapses into one coherent, self-consistent emanation of the same consciousness cognitive agent, but many. So, any one of the resonant consciousness wave functions will only resonate with the resonant consciousness wave function (of its multiple personality choices) that is a coherent time evolution (quantum knot) history with its own wave function signature. That resonant consciousness would still be aware of the other a time evolution (quantum knot) histories (of the other people/personalities in their head) but ascribe those to supernatural hijacking of their brains/thoughts (e.g., demonic possession, spirits, other ‘people’ in their brains, etc.), thus they would not say that those other, equally valid versions of themselves, are part of them, but foreign mental invaders.

In this way, I’d say that consciousness can never be self-assess as a snapshot in time, but has to be part of a self-consistent path history (like a story/narrative) that all points to the same resonant focal point/pattern that you call you. Mess with that, and your sense of self consciousness/identity should degrade and vanish into a chaos ideas, facts, memories but without any form, function, or purpose, which I not call that ‘thought’ or ‘thinking’, so a problem to the Descartes way of evidencing oneself.

Furthermore, under my 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 consciousness.

In the context of the Cogito Ergo Sum vs. Solipsism points of view, I’d say that my above model applies to both, but both are malformed hypothesis b/c they lack to true mechanics of how consciousness works, so both are far to simplistic ways of forcing a circle into a square, and there will be arguments and evidence for/against each b/c neither is a suitable, complete model. To extend my largely Solipsism supporting framework to the Cogito Ergo Sum view, I believe I just extend the sensory motor boundary of one’s consciousness resonance condition to include other humans of like mind and all the same above mechanics work, and to the extreme case you get a mob, acting as one mind/ consciousness towards a unified form, function, and purpose. They lose individuality and together become the new consciousness of a superorganism much like individual atoms can become lost into a Bose-Einstein condensate fifth state of (consciousness) matter. Once they get out of the superorganism (Bose-Einstein condensate) consciousness state they almost have no memory or explanation of how they could come to think or act to kill/destroy/eradicate/etc. and go back to their comparatively boring mundane lives as individual consciousness agents. I’d say the human ability for this superorganism consciousness state of mind/being evidences against the purist Solipsism views.
I could go on and on, but these are my basic ideas so far on the subject.

thoughs always require a thinker. You exist. Statistical probability should be applied to all rational decisions. You don't have to be 100% on anything (a specific holy book) and it would be a bad gamble to assume you don't exist. Everything is a gamble and it is good to play the odds wisely.