John C. Medaille wrote:
> The problem I have with the cogito is that it
> assumes what it sets out to prove. How do we know
> that the "I" is doing the thinking? Personally,
> if I were to try to set forth a "proof" of my
> existence (which I never actually do), I would
> far rather say, "I take a crap, therefore I am";
> I'm pretty sure that's me on the pot. Why elevate
> the purely mental over the extra-mental?

This simply miscasts the "argument".  It is not the kind of
"demonstration" that you appear to have in mind, especially
not of the "pretty sure" kind.  You may object to the
phrasing (which Descartes used in French as well), but it
would be really baffling if you had any problem with the
intent.  The intent of course is to make a simple point:
roughly, if you try to doubt every ontological claim, you
cannot (coherently).

Of course there are deep difficulties in understanding the
meaning of the phrase "I am", but that is a different sort
of criticism, and your post clearly treats this as
unproblematic.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac