Cogito Meipso ut Existens: Much more appropriate in my humble opinion than Cogito Ergo Sum.

Cogito Meipso ut Existens   

Much more appropriate in my humble opinion than Cogito Ergo Sum.

Less definitive certainly, but possibly more defensible

I think Myself into Existence....is very different than "I think, but, I do not exist"

In your equation I understand the variable abbreviations, but am not sure of your Assumptions regarding the values/definitions of each variable.  And if I suggest that it does matter because the question is not one of pure relativity, can you solve your own equation without relying on definitions that in themselves cannot be derived via Proofs?

Person = ??

Exist = ??

Think = ??

Thought = ??

If, as some say, meta-cognition is uniquely human and a fundamental part of the human definition, does the absence of self-awareness make us something other than human?  If so, and removing the logical crutch of Faith, we likely were something other than Human until we became self-aware.  And if this is true, can we know if self-awareness happened suddenly and completely, or was it a long term transition away from not being self-aware?  Where I am struggling I suppose is with rejecting the logic that if self-awareness is part of the definition of Person, and self-awareness was achieved only in small increments over time, can we really state as false:  I think Myself into Existence?

Or possibly: Person does not equal Human?  But Person was among your variables, not mine, so I'll have to wait for your variable definitions, to not do so would require me to assume that I understand your definitions, which is definitely not the case.

Cogito Meipso ut Existens
Since physical form has no place in the equation, and for someone who never really explores the entropic entology of his thoughtful presence, I am left to conclude that because Faith is not a definable variable in any manner of logic based Proof, Descartes ultimately gets close to deriving a purely logical sense of beingness, but the magnetism of faith renders his purely rational compass largely useless, and he definitely ends up somewhere, doing quite well with desks and candles, but possibly coming up a bit short, despite the fact that he could at any point in time be a doorstop, or desk( less likely a candle).

Poor Descartes (Med 1st Philosophy, etc.), understands so completely that in order to establish just one simple truth about anything that he perceives either Cognitively and/or Sensorially in the real world, he must throw down an anchor and stop the maelstrom of uncertainties, doubts, and humilities from sinking his faith-tainted vessel and keep it from disappearing into the murkiness of the all that we don’t know, as he makes his philosophical voyage across the expanses of the finite to the infinite. He “knows” that he needs to somehow establish something to be True, by way of a process of reason, that he can feel ok about, given his strong tendencies towards belief in things that are extremely difficult( if not impossible) to prove. He comes to something of a conclusion that other potential truths must be referenced against an unquestionable Truth. He also understands that over time and with shifting perceptions, both cognitive and sensory (and intellectually), that those things that he evaluates against his Truth, may take on different forms, either physically or intellectually. But he also supposes that a certain amount of transformation is allowable without the object or concept of his consideration becoming something entirely different. The supposition he comes to rest on is that everything that can be described at some point in time, contains an “essence” such that it may undergo various forms of transformations without corrupting the inherent essence that defines the ………truth…….of the subject of meditation. He goes on to reason that if this essence is too severely strained, it becomes something else entirely, in very much of an entropic demise from its former identity, earmarked by the once discernible, but now missing, authentic essence. Intellectually, the Entology of the loss of authentic essence can be understood, but contextual influencers have eliminated what may have once been a static form of truth. It is exactly because of the ebb and flow of truthfulness, that Descartes was so earnest in his attempts to logically defend a single Truth that he could trust as his infallible baseline. Like I mentioned in an earlier post(s), Faith, Trust, Beliefs, Truths, Deceptions, Transformations, Entropics and disambiguations, are, and can only be relative descriptors without a fixed point that one( the acceptable quorum?) feels validated in using as a universal benchmark. Descartes finds God as his benchmark. Now, without starting to talk about turtles again, I suggest that Descartes rationalization of God as his Truth is at minimum is a moving target, highly personalized, and infinitely adjustable. Now imagine a carpenter trying to build a house using a measuring stick formed in the same manner as Descartes formulation of God as a static, and thus an unchanging, viable benchmark. It’s entirely possible that the carpenter can succeed with his construction if he works is total solitude. But, suppose the Carpenter has an Assistant who has constructed his own measuring stick.

But Cogito Ergo Sum ? A thesis of ethereal foundation. But such is the outcome of so much good logic that derails as Faith saturates and obscures reason like a can of spilled paint on a mathematicians notebook.