I think therefore I exist

I have the honors of closing off this debate, but many thanks to Pro for instigating this intriguing topic of mystery and knowledge! We've delved deep into the thinking process--that is, if we are thinking, or if we're just programmed to this odd state of "mind" which we'll never discover in our life times--and it has been difficult, in a way, but I am very happy I was a part of it.Here's the thing: Pro refuted one of my initial proposals that we cannot be a figment of someone's imagination. However, that is not the only argument I proposed, as my only job in this debate is to disprove the statement "I think, therefore I am." It was (obviously) Pro's job to prove that he thinks, therefore he exists.Because we are nowhere near to knowing everything that is available for action so we cannot assume what a futuristic, higher-technological world could be, it is quite possible that "we" are inside simulations which are actually just minds which simulates everything we call existence. Pro might say "even if we are in a simulation we are still thinking and/or existing," but since we do not know the possibilities of science from a more advanced platform we don't know what is, in fact, attainable. As I have explained before, our knowledge cannot compete with the potential of science. It is possible that there is another "world" of creatures, futuristic in our terms, and they are staring down at us and controlling us (they are probably amused if this possibility is true). This applies to us thinking because, if we are being controlled--in a simulation, more specifically--then we are not actually thinking, but the technology from the cutting edge world in which we do not know explains how we are being simulated in a virtual reality yet not existing in REAL LIFE. This is a proposition but it would explain how the saying "I think therefore I am" is not always correct.Rebuttals"Since Peter Forest technically doesn't have any thoughts, he doesn't exist."You have disproven my proposition concerning being part of Someone's imagination. I congratulate you. :)"They cannot think that they exist, since if a character says the statement "I think therefore I exist.""If a character is programmed to say "I think therefore I exist" then no, he is not thinking, but he says so yet does not exist. Basically, Rene Descartes' saying means that existing is thinking. What he should have said was "I think therefore there's thinking." "Now you have a claim that we are are not definitely sure about anything about existence. This claim is only half true." Yes but 'definitely' is either FOR SURE or NOT for sure. It can't be half true. "We cannot be sure how we exist. But we are sure that we exist." Is this correct? How does Pro know? It is not definitely correct unless Pro can back up the claim. "If I built a robot that would copy your actions and responses, does it actually feel what you do?" That is not the point. The robot says it is thinking but that does not mean anything. We do not know if it really is because we do not have a precise definition for 'thought.' And I am not debating against the idea that a robot "thinks therefore exists," but more along the lines of a virtual character that says he thinks, which is what we could be. "If I don't exist, how would I be able to think about me not existing? But If I was a simulation, would I actually think about me not existing, or merely calculate what would be the output of this thought if it was real." We do not know the full potential or practicable science that might be involved in the "minds" behind the simulations of "us," so I cannot answer that. All I know is that it is a possibility and thus the saying is proven wrong. I cannot prove that Pro personally "does not exist" but I can state what is or may be prospective/probable. Concluding Arguments In a sense thoughts think themselves. It is actually more complicated than that: They are dependently-originated. What's that? Dependent Origination is a teaching so subtle that the Buddha declared that it was on account of not seeing, not penetrating this teaching that both he and we had wandered on in this round of suffering.Thinking is no escape. It leads to logical dead ends and fundamental assumptions. What if I were to let go of thinking and just being? Thank you for debating!