Until he knew

1. The cogito proves that there is an entity that thinks momentarily but not that there is a permanent and continuous self like “I”. It is only a product of our perceptions and experiences.
In a similar idea, even when looking inward we do not encounter a stable and unchanging self. But different perceptions, thoughts and feelings that arise all the time.
Also, it is not clear what the reliability of introspection and reflection is as a means of establishing the existence of an essential self. While our perceptions are often fragmented, inconsistent and influenced by various factors such as emotions, biases and external stimuli. (As the proverb of the 20-year-old Mike compared to the Mike of today)

2. Sounds logical.

Right. So what? Of course, it happens every moment.

So what?!
This shows that the claim about the existence of the continuous self is not in the scope of Descartes' claim.

And we have never encountered it!

And therefore? Neither does the theory of relativity.

Descartes only proved that there is a thinking "I", but indeed it does not necessarily have to be uniform. In contrast, Schopenhauer claimed that the experiential "I" that observes everything is known from within, through introspection (thus claiming that while Kant stated that only the phenomenon is known, the "I" is known in itself).

The cogito argument claims to prove that there is a being who thinks, but in fact it only proves the existence of thought. It jumps to the conclusion that there is also an entity that thinks the thought, but where does that come from?
Am I wrong?

Thought is not an object but a property. Property of what? If there is a property, there is an object that is its property. The existence of a thought means the existence of a mind that thinks that thought is its property or an event that occurs in it and by it.

What and therefore? If this does not prove that the mind that thought at time X is the same entity that thought at time X+1. (or a day after sleep)
So what good was all this proof to me!?!?!?

Just say I think I am the same I am.

Who said it was useful to you? And if I were to prove the existence of a continuous being, would it be useful to you? In what way? That's what is proven there and that's it. If it's not useful to you, then it's not.

So how do you prove the existence of the entire world, and also that it has meaning?

And if all these claims are not distilled into proof, then why is everyone talking about the cogito. That it has value on Wikipedia.

Why do I need to prove the existence of the world? Are you on pills or something? I just see that it exists, and that's enough for me. Are you looking for proof that ice cream tastes good before you eat it? Or that the chair exists before you sit on it? Anyone who looks for proof of this belongs in the psychiatric department, not the philosophical department.
Everyone talks about the cogito because it is a very interesting argument that attempts to prove a factual claim through logical consideration and conceptual analysis alone, without assumptions. If it were successful in this, it would be of great philosophical importance, but not because someone needs to prove to themselves their existence or the existence of their thought, but because it was a demonstration of the ability to prove factual claims with logical tools (I commented on this in column 634, which appeared just today, and in several columns in the past). By the way, Descartes himself knew very well that he existed even before the cogito, and the cogito did not help him at all with this. Many have already insisted that the doubt on which he was based was methodical and not true. He tried to substantiate a claim that he knew was true, because the method of substantiation was important to him (saving rationalism from empiricist attacks).
In short, this argument does not come to prove that I exist or that my thought exists or that my mind exists. I know these three even without it. The question is whether he succeeds in proving something (one of these three) with logical tools or not. This is the important discussion regarding him. Therefore, it does not matter whether he proves the existence of momentary thought, the existence of the mind at the moment, or the existence of a continuous object in time. If he had succeeded in proving any of these, it would have been his achievement (but he did not).

I understand,
But if there is no need to prove our claims, but we assume them and that's it, what does the field of philosophy add to us, which seems to be trying to get somewhere? It seems from your words like an unnecessary waste of time, or more like the useless sister of mathematics.

Also, what would you argue with a person who claims to meet every day with an alien from Mars. Psychiatrists have encountered such people.
According to him, he is apparently right, what is the difference between assuming that the ice cream exists or that the alien exists, he assumes both to be equally true.
However, you think he is wrong/imagining and you will also attach a host of nicknames to him.

So can that person who met the alien come to the conclusion that he is wrong? When from his point of view, the assumption that this really happened is no less valid than the assumption that the ice cream exists.

There is certainly great value. See Torey's series on philosophy.
Logical inference shows you what follows from your assumptions, and there will be times when it will make you reconsider them. Either because the result does not make sense to you in itself, or it turns out to contradict other assumptions of yours. A premise is not arbitrary, but it is not forced upon us either. We examine assumptions, and adopt or reject them.
Even if the result makes sense to you, then philosophy has taught you the same thing. Geometry also teaches you a great many things, even though they were all hidden within its assumptions.

By the way, that delusion is not just according to his method, but consistent with his method. Just is just. There is no “just according to his method”.

I didn't understand what it meant that thought is not an object but a property? Thinking is a property, but thought itself is an existing being, and he proved that.

The mind is the object. Thought is an event that happens in the mind or brain.

I wanted to ask something from a different perspective.
From what you say, it seems that the purpose of philosophy resembles a pipeline. Examining the process that occurs from premises to conclusions and vice versa.
But not to prove the premises or the conclusions. There, this is a matter for a new intuitive examination.

But then, if there are two people who disagree, one with intuition X and the other without.
Let's say in the extreme case there is a person who claims to have met an alien every day for the past month and the other claims not to have met, but that he is hallucinating.
How can we have a discussion about who is right? Make them consistent.
(The case of an alien may sound extreme, but in fact most religions began with charismatic people who had a strong spiritual experience)

And in the opposite direction, if there is no way to have a discussion on the subject, can the person who claimed to have met an alien come to the conclusion that he is this one, if not and he really is this one, why don't you say that this shows that the skeptical claim has serious weight, how can we trust the premises?…

Also, what is the situation with most arguments in the world? Most people do not fall into logic but have different assumptions like right and left, (otherwise we would expect to see in arguments a careful logical examination of the person in front of us).
But if the assumptions are different and not convincing, there is no point in arguing about anything. And everyone will continue on their own path. But this is not the case.

Conducting a discussion about assumptions is done in the realm of rhetoric, not logic. You can get the other person to look at his assumptions from different angles, see whether he agrees with the conclusions that arise from them, and thus discuss the assumptions. Therefore, assumptions are certainly changeable.
Beyond that, even if they are not changeable, this does not indicate skepticism. It just means that there is no way to talk, but it really does not mean that there is no right or wrong.

Obviously, an argument doesn't mean that no one is right or wrong
but assuming that positions cannot be changed through rhetoric. So if someone holds different assumptions than you, doesn't that challenge the validity of those assumptions for you? Why are you better than him?

Because I am right. See column 247.

I started reading.
But I didn't understand why the other person wouldn't say he was right?

If everyone says the other is right, de facto it's doubtful.

Or how can the delusional person know that he is delusional and not that others are wrong and he is right.