Can anyone refute the statement 'I think; therefore I am."?

Question:I think it's a pretty sketchy way to assure yourself that you exist simply by the fact that you're capable of thought.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I think it's a pretty sketchy way to assure yourself that you exist simply by the fact that you're capable of thought.

You're right. Descartes didn't have to go anywhere near that far to have reached the same place. After all, he could have concluded that even if his perceptions were false, he was the one perceiving those false perceptions and that he existed therefore as well. But part of his exercise was to actually demonstrate in what way all those other things could be doubted.

Once you accept the existance of an objective reality, then it would go without saying that what or whether you think has no bearing on existance whatsoever. Rocks do not think (at least we don't think they do) but they seem to have no trouble hanging around; often in places where we wished they didn't. Nor does any amount of thinking or not-thinking alone seem to produce any change in the universe, unless it is married also to action.

The trouble is getting from point A to point B... a leap that some people still have trouble making. If it doesn't take much to prove we ourselves have some kind of existance, it also doesn't really say much. But you continue to doubt all your senses, your reason, and even the ownership of your own thoughts, it's hard to go anyplace else from there.

Yeah, but it's still the only way...The fact that you're aware of yourself proves your existence in most definite way !

Wouldn't think of it. Self-awareness implies existence.
If you don't accept self-awareness as a proof then there are no other experiences that I can think of that would be more compelling. If we think and don't exist then it all doesn't matter anyways.
Sometimes the answers to the big things really are the little ones. Profound doesn't have to be complex.

some people interpret the sentence
I think i am invincible, therefore they are not...

I could perhaps argue that it is consciousness and not mere self-awareness, that proves existence beyond oneself..... this would translate to a modified statement......... I will, therefore I am. It is the will of an existence, and not mere awareness, that can manifest as an impact on another existence and thereby provide the objective proof of its own existence.

No, it's impossible to refute Descartes statement because if one cannot think, one cannot really exist, except in a comatose condition, which really isn't existing in the real world at all. It's like saying, "I am, therefore I exist." What are the logical premises to refute such statements? The fact is, there are none, so why do you think his premise is sketchy? Animals and insects exist, but have no rational intellect. Therefore, they are an accompliment to humans who think and are. Without thought, the world would be a biological anarchy subject to extinction of different species. Animals and insects do not know they exist or even what type of animal they are. All they know is that they must feed, sleep and pas on their genes. You and I could probably debate this for the next thousand years and never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion of what Descartes was trying to say. Agree?

Look around you at the actions and words of others an guess if they thought first ?

It is sketchy; but it cannot be refuted without acknowledging the very concepts you would be trying to refute.

A better way of saying it is: "Consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms." (Rand)

This means: HOW could you be conscious IF you did not exist as something to be conscious of?

the basic refutation to Descartes cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) is that it is a solipsism (the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist), or a circular argument. All it affirms is itself. If thinking is the criteria for existing, then since there is thinking, clearly there also must be existing. But it does not necessarily follow in a logical proposition. Descartes could still be being decieved about whether or not he is thinking. Nonetheless, the implication is that since he believes he is something, so he probably does exist. There must be something which is doing the believing and the existing. But it could as easily be anything else at all. I fart therefore I am. I eat potato chips, therefore I am. I am, therefore I am. I am not, therefore I am. Literally anything would work. Or I think, therefore I think. I fart, therefore I fart. It's all the same. Rock and roll is only rock and roll. God says something very similar when Moses asks who He is; He says "I am that I am". And Renee Descartes still needs to rely on God to trust that he is not being decieved and that existence is not some crazy illusion. The cogito argument leads to his next most famous position called the dreaming argument (how do I know this is not some insane illusion perpetrated by an evil genius? Because I have faith in God and trust that he would not decieve me for evil purposes). Descartes was quite capable of understanding the shortcomings of his own arguments, but they were still very powerful tools which laid the foundation for the modern sciences.

Read "Descartes' error" by Damasio for one critique.