"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

"i do not agree with your framework but i agree with the example you used and others like that not to be allowed. I kno it sounds confusing but your example is saying something like a picture cant exist but a painting is not an illusion it is just a painting but illusions "be". they "take place and occur" in the mind of one who does exist. they may not be permanent or exist on there own but everything and everybody was created by some higher being. And without your framework you automatically loose because if illusions "are" "was" or "will be" they have then you automatically loose" You're focusing on the wrong part. In Descartes' statement, we are cocnerned with the "I", not the "am". Of course the painting is, but the thing that the painting depicts isn't. Apply this logic further, of course the illusion is, but I am not. So, in order for you to win, you have to prove that it is me (or the individual) who exists, not an illusion, since the statement "I think therefore I am" focuses on the individual, not a possible illusion of the individual. I've justified my framework. "this argument in itself is fundamentally flawed. If you are the product of one who does exist you will not recieve thoughts. you would be an empty vessel a brainless figure that acts as if you have emotions and thoughts but really you would just be acting out of the will of ones mind. There would be no thought and thus they are not real." Speculation. I could still be illusory and have someone else's thoughts. I refer once again to the dream analogy. A character thinking in a dream does not make that character real. "Secondly on the same argument you cannot prove that the illusion thinks and all logic and reason is in favor of it not thinking which you would have to prove wrong for your first argument to hold any weight." There's no logical reason why an illusion can't think. My point is show the flaws in Descartes' line of thought. Since there's no actual reason (at least not one which you have yet provided) why I can't be still be an illusion and perceive certain things, the first contention flows through. "On the other hand having thoughts of your own and the ability to create is reserved only for those who exist. THought of your own cannot be given to those who dont exist because they cannot doupt what there creator tells them becuase then they are not dependent which means they are real. thoughts=doupt=real" Tell me why that is reserved for those who exist. And who says they can't tell what their creator tells them. If their creator can give these illusions thoughts, why can't he give them the ability to doubt these thouhts? At this point, I am still not me, just a very complicated illusion of me. Let's take this idea a bit further. Let's say that somewhere, I exist. However, I have the ability to create an illusion of myself. With the ability to create, I can give whatever characteristics I want to this illusion, including the ability to doubt. This illusion is still not actually real, though. He can have all of my thoughts, and still not be real. "To be quite frank with you i just dont like this argument. You assume that perciving thought is the same as to "think". Descartes clearly said that "i think therefore i am" not that he percieves thought there fore he is. IF the thought is yours then you are real and that is what you are conceiding to and that is the point descartes was making" To think is to perceive thought... They're interchangeable. But you're avoiding the point. You've given no reason why the thought is real. Any rebuttal you gave was to my first contention, not my second, and I've already reuted your attacks there. "and on the same point an illusion cannot recieve thoughts but acts and appears to recieve thoughts so thats another reason your point is invalid. They are puppets controlled by a mind and i think that we can all agree that puppets do not think." I addressed this earlier in this round. "the act of percieving something automatically makes something real. I am sorry but i would be using one more definiton" That wasn't the argument. The argument is that the perception isn't necessarily real. "Now back to my point something that is not real or does not take place or occur cannot then attain awareness or understanding.One cannnot be truly aware of there surroundings if they do not think which i have proven illusions do not do. to be aware is to occur and be independent which are all the qualities of being a real boy." I agree with you. If something can't perceive it can't be real. My point was that Descartes makes the assumption that the perception is real, but there is no justification for this.