Interacting proves our existence?

Does interacting proves our existence?

Well let us say there is three major laws about our system, there is thoughts, memories and observation. Now in terms of observation, we as an individual must observe something in order to be aware of its existence here's an example to illustrate my point.
Let's say there are two strangers, and at some point in life they become familiar with each other by interacting with one another, they are aware of each other's existence right? Now let's say they're two different people, one is in Asia, the other is Europe, initially they do exist but they're unaware of each other's existence, if one's life came to and end without meeting the other, then wouldn't that person never existed because he was never part of his memories but had existed for another in which he interacted with? He could not even have been a thought because they never crossed over to be interacted with.

Can we understand ourselves without any interacting with another human individual, or do we need to interact to become aware of ourselves and to know, not think, know we are who we think we are?

 

i guess no in our current status, its somewhat related to the question, if an alien comes to our planet would they be here to conquer us or not?

if a being able to travel light years away to have an advance technology to do that, then i believe they would be mature enough to understand life in existence.

as a human being, we need interaction to know who we are and to understand what life is.

 

Existance is a man-made thought ;p

Perception, is a man made thought. Or to be more-honest, it is the precipitate of the neural structures which bind and forge us that creates perception and thus existance.

Proof?

What is "red"? Many people can identify "red", but a select few of this worlds population understand what "red" really is.

It is a wavelength within the spectrum of "visible" light. Humans generally follow this pattern quite cutely... this spectrum can activate particular enzymes within the cones (color-sensitive light-receptors within the back of our eye on the retena, particularily focused and clusteredat the fovea) that cause the 'breakdown' (truthfully the formation of an enantiomer) of rhodopsin /opsin in the stacks that causes an enzyme cascade that sends a nerve action potential through the optic nerve, chiasm, "occipital lobe" and then to further visual association areas for processing.

Truth is? There is no such thing as "red". It is all perception.


There is no such thing as love, that is, once again, a trait forged by our masterful nervous system.

There is no such thing as being "happy" and "sad" and "anxious", hell, we can now prescribe and induce these emotions in experiments.

What does a blind man know of sight? Little, should he have been born blind. It is most likely that the visual regions of his cortex were swallowed up by neural-plasitcity to perform other functions.

Who here even knows of the sense of proprioception, awareness of the limbs? Something we take for granted each and every-day. We can close our eyes and know where our arm is for example, we can maintain motor movement in our hand to write without eyeballing our hand as we script out the actions in accordance to our motor-memory mediated by the straitum.

So to question existiance, is to question whether our neural-structures depict us as existing.

It is true, that we can interact with eachother... through our sense of touch, sight, smell, taste and auditory senses. So, to that end, we do exist, and so do the others around us.

 

You would be made aware of someones existence. Not prove that he exists.
Interaction is important, but it does not prove the existence of something else. It was there before you interacted. So you're made aware of it's existence.

If there is one thing in all of philosophy that can't be debated to be false is the statement. "I exist"

In order to understand another human, we do need some interaction for sure. Since everyone is different.


Edit: I couldnt bring myself to read the book that aegis wrote above me, needs a better hook. :O

 

Although I should add....


There are most obviously disorders that can alter ones thought process....

Such as dementia to name probably the most common one (multi-infarct dementia, fronto-temporal lobe dementia (previously called picks disease), HIV-associated-dementia, punch-drunk syndrome aka dementia puglistia)....

Schizophrenia, dellusions, illusions... (dellusions and illusions = vaaary different!).



So there is an exception to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING... that is an importaint rule to life x_x;


But this also shows the legal perspective on "existance", as one can get pardoned for their crimes should they have a SEVERE mental disorder... like schizophrenia (certain types that is). Personality disorder like antisocial disorder WON'T COUNT.

So the legal system even looks at it as these peoples perceptions depict their "existance" and the "existance" of that around themselves (which has been proved by fMRI scans showing the activation of associationa reas JUST the same as if they had heard a stimuli for example during a auditory hallucination).

But I'll add heere a tidbit of advice... it has been researched and found out that those who plea that they have a mental disorder and obtain it usually are kept locked up "incarcirated" for DOUBLE the duration than if they pleaded guilty.

 

Very interesting points people

Well I don't mean when you interact a person will then exist, we know many subjects (man) exist but to become aware of ones personal existence, we must have interacting to define who they are. Awareness is also an aspect of proof that person did hold an identity and isn't just a subject of many more out there, simply existing. We know of many of there but until interacting, their existence is simply 'unaware'. Unless they've left something behind that will be recorded in history which is also a form of interacting.