No, but existence is required for thought.
Um, if you must exist in order to think, then thought IS proof of existence.That "thought in itself" is the one referred to by Descartes that proves existence.

"I think therefore I am" is true, but it cannot be used to derive any other truths. To use your analogy, if a book contains words then it exists, but you know absolutely nothing else about the book or the words.

(A book that doesn't contain words can also exist, but cogito, ergo sum has nothing to say on that subject.)

wut he sed ... I think

You can dream or hallucinate hitting your thumb with a hammer. You might feel real, even though the action didn't "exist."

You're right, of course. I was trying to say that the thought is not the ONLY proof of existence.

I'd have better luck applying that logic to disproving "I am, therefore I think" I guess..

I'm not getting the connection between the philosophical statement and subconscious dreams and mental illnesses :confused:

Just color me stuuupid.

Curious Yellow is not an option on the poll. I am therefore not sure how to respond.

Union regulations prevent me from responding to this questions unless I am paid for it. :D

Wow, this thread reminds me of one of my earlier courses at uni. lol

We never really found an answer there either.

There's no 'i' in 'thought' ! ;)

I think the statement annoys me.

I am annoyed, therefore I must exist!

I chose not to think about why it annoys me. I have free will. I must exist!

I take a shower and someone turns the water on in another part of the house which leads to shrieking from either ice cold water or scalding hot water. I know I exist!

I wonder how bored a person must be to sit and ponder ones own existence, then to finally come to the conclusion that the fact they are thinking at all is proof of ones own existence. sheesh

haha! :) funny

"Pondering one's own existence" isn't the point. The question Descartes was asking was whether he could know anything for certain, when one's senses are fallible. To build an absolutely correct philosophy, you have to start with something that you know to be absolutely true, and he was looking for something that could be known to be absolutely true.

Cogito, ergo sum was the answer to that question. Unfortunately, it didn't help with the larger issue, because no other knowledge can be derived from it.

I think thought is proof of life, it's just not proof of intelligence.;)

Just like posting.