Premise - I think, therefore I am.
The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality.
Conclusion - whatever I conclude is correct.
So let's examine this one statement at a time:
"Premise - I think, therefore I am." First off, this isn't a premise, it's a conclusion based on a condition - one frought with unintended implications. "I think, therefore I am" implies that thought is necessary for existence, and that "whatever doesn't think, doesn't exist". Perhaps he didn't mean it that way though. Perhaps our friend Thought Provoker just meant that thinking is evidence of existence? So, when he says "I (Thought Provoker) think, therefore I (Thought Provoker) am" he's essentially just saying "I (Thought Provoker) exist". Well, since I know he exists, I'll grant his first premise: "Thought Provoker exists".
Thought Provoker's second premise then is: "The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality". Well, not in a rational universe it isn't. In a rational universe, truth is demonstrable. If someone gets drunk and sees pink elephants in the room, the rest of us can be sure that he is delusional. That's because, in a rational universe, just because he sees pink elephants it doesn't mean those elephants are actually there. We can see that there are no pink elephants in the room and we know from biology that pink elephants don't exist (unless painted that way). However, in an irrational universe, truth is not demonstrable. We can't know, in an irrational universe, whether there really are pink elephants or not. That's because, in an irrational universe, everything can be true and nothing can be true (remember it's irrational!) So Thought Provoker's second premise is only true in an irrational universe.
So what of his conclusion: "whatever I conclude is correct"? Well let's restate his argument and see if the conclusion logically follows:
"I (Thought Provoker) exist in an irrational universe, therefore whatever I conclude is correct."Wow! What do you know? His conclusion does follow from his premises!