How would one go about proving his own existence WITHOUT using any of his/her sense organs.
For those who will say "I think therefore I am", thoughts are produced through a sense organ which is ultimately fallible.
I don't want the mind to exist, I want thy self to exist.
If I could prove to myself that I exist I would not have to. You ought to distinguish between: 1. proving that some proposition p is true, on the one hand, and proving to someone that p is true, on the other hand. Those are not the same things. The first means presenting an argument to establish the truth of p. The second means trying to persuade someone that p is true. You may do the first without doing the second, and do the second without doing the first.
I don't understand your objection to the I think argument. Thoughts are fallible in the sense that what we think is true may not be true. But that is irrelevant to whether or not we are thinking. Even false thoughts are thoughts. And what has how thoughts are produced to do with whether they exist? However they are produced, they exist.
And whether or not they are fallible, they exists. Descartes did not argue" I have infallible thoughts, therefore I exist. He argued, I have thought, therefore I exist. In fact, what Descartes meant by "thoughts" was just, "consciousness". (In 17th century France, "pensee'" had a much wider meaning than "thought". It meant "being conscious". So that Descartes was arguing,"I am conscious, therefore I exist", on the very reasonable grounds that one could not be conscious (and, in fact, one could not be anything at all) without existing.