The cogito is something like a signature of human-reality at least of a broad class, but is not necessarily embedded in it. Spelled out as 'I think therefore I am' it contains two clauses asymmetrically linked and sharing a common subject. The two verbs are different, thinking is not being and being is not thinking. Whatever it means to be is not the same as whatever it means to think. Furthermore since the subject is the same it is implicitly telling you that it does not reveal anything about the 'I'. There are some who explicitly deny that the 'I' is essential to this formula, that it ought to reduce to something like 'thinking is' but that is to miss the whole point. What does the 'therefore' correspond to? It appears to be a logical term, but as such it ought to link two hypothetical propositions which is not the case here. The contrapositive 'I am not therefore I don't think' is nonsensical since it is already an act of thought, and even transposed to the form 'If I were not then I wouldn't be thinking' it is at best a tautology. No, something happens rather than is stated in the enunciation of the cogito, and whatever it is it hinges on the 'I'. The 'I' is the transition from the verb to think, or more generally to experience, and the verb to be. If you say 'it thinks therefore it is' it is only because when you say 'it thinks' you mean it has an 'I'.