[MDSL]: I see where you are going. Reguardless of how I make a claim that my body is autnomous you will say that it must have some interactions with other things that I will say obtain. I will play.
I claim that my body is autonomous because it does not strictly depend on anything else for it’s existence. What I mean to say is that it could exist, however briefly, apart from all other things. The hand however is not some thing that is apart from other things.
Why couldn’t your hand exist apart from other things?
Take away the gravity of Earth, and your body flies into space.
Take away the Sun, and your body freezes.
Take away the atmosphere, and your cells rupture.
Take away oxygen, and you asphyxiate.
Take away your head, and your body dies. Is the body dependent on its parts as well? 
[MDSL]: I already covered those with “however briefly.” The difference between the hand and the body is that even if Earth were stripped of gravity I could flail about and probably scream like a girl as I flew into space. The lonely hand however could not function at all. It would be as a rock flying in to the void.
Of course the body could be said to be dependant on parts. However, I do not count those as Parts when they are connected to the body and functioning normally. They are just the body in total.
Let us change the object of the discussion. How would you reduce a rock into “interactions?” Say, a rock of any size. It is not dependant on anything at all for it’s continued existence. If it interacts with nothing at all, does it cease to exist?
[VAA]: But the hand would function if it were cut off, it just wouldn’t function very well.
I could just as easily say that the body is merely a part of the biosphere.
Is your body a collection of billions and billions of living things, or is it a single living thing made of billions and billions of smaller units? Is a cell a single thing, or is it a collection of smaller things?
Isn’t the rock dependent on anything? If it’s touched, its position changes. Its temperature is dependent on its general environment. Its very structure is dependent on the laws of physics and chemistry.
[MDSL]: I would agree that all things are reduceable to “simples” or some such irreduceable things.
My question is: Does a rock which does not interact with things not exist? Clumbsily stated perhaps. It sounds like you are reduceing all things to the sum of their interactions, and then to the interactions themselves. I don’t agree.
What happens when two different things interact in exactly the same way with a third different thing? Do they become de facto the same thing?
Say that I hit a wall with a hammer. Then using the same amount of force and hitting the same spot I whack the wall with a rock. Are the hammer and the rock then the same thing (not identical things of course)?
[VAA]: ‘Existence’ is a relative concept. That is, something can only be said to exist relative to something else.
Let’s imagine a rock that doesn’t interact with you, or anything that does interact with you. How could you say it existed? You could never detect it by definition. It could never have any effect on you by definition. There would be no way to distinguish its existence from its non-existence; as far as you’d be concerned, those states would be equivalent.
When do two different things ever interact in precisely the same way with the same thing?
Are you using precisely the same force? Are you striking precisely the same place? How are you preventing the hammer from gravitationally interacting with the wall in a manner different from the rock, and vice versa?
[MDSL]: Arguement from ignorance. Just because I am not aware of its’ existance has nothing to do with the actual existence of the thing.
**
[MDSL]: In this example. I think that it is an acceptable premise. No?
[MDSL]: Again, in this example. If you only want to deal in things that we can both prove, then I don’t think that you can say that all stuff is only interaction anyway.
It doesn’t really matter to the discussion I don’t think.
So, if this were to take place, are the hammer and the rock identical with each other? Point being: a good metaphysical definition of “stuff” should be able to tell one type of stuff from another type of stuff.
I think you miss my point. If it’s not even possible for you to be aware of it, there’s no way in which it can even potentially be considered to exist. That’s what ‘existence’ really means: the word has no meaning otherwise.
** There’s a very old saying often attributed to some Greek guy: “No man enters a river twice, because it’s not the same river and it’s not the same man.” On a certain scale (disregarding certain kinds of interactions), the hammer and rock are having superficially similar effects on the wall. They’re not identical, however.
I’d say it’s incredibly important, but YRMV.
If the hammer and the rock shared all properties, there’d be no difference between one and the other: they’d be the same thing, not merely identical. If there are no possible distinctions to be made between them, there’s nothing to tell apart.
[MDSL]: I disagree with your definition of “existence.” I don’t see that my awarness of something is in anyway related to its’ existence. There are a great many things that I am not aware of which none the less insist on existing. You may have a beard and yet I am unaware of such.
Back to the topic.
I am not talking about the hammer and the rock sharing any properties at all. I could use vastly different substances for the example. Suppose I used a hammer and some pudding to pound on the wall. I want the two objects to only share the interaction with the wall. That would, by your definition, seem to make them identical. How does it not?
(what is YRMV?)
The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide
Everyone: this thread will hopefully be devoted to the examination of two basic questions:
I trend to shy away from heady subjects…not having much of a head.
But if someone suggested to me that existance required only a vague concept or the most through thought to be realized, and even as far toward its realization as creating a phyiscal schematic, the widget or what have you, does not exist and never has until physical conception…But then when you consider something as ethereal as a philosophy, the ideas behind it give it provenience , but it takes the enactment of the philosophical ideals to give it existence…And the only thing I think is possible right now is a ripping headache from churning my brain cells.
** But if I had a beard (which I don’t), you’d interact with it, even if you weren’t aware of it. In principle, it would be possible for you to become aware of it, even if you aren’t now.
If there were no way in which this beard could affect you, if there were no way even in principle for you to ever be aware of it, it couldn’t meaningfully be said to exist.
** There’s no way they can ever have exactly the same interaction with the wall (and all other things that interact with the wall).
It’s rather like asking the question “What would I see if I rode on a beam of light?” Einstein showed that it was impossible to travel at the speed of light, and so the question was meaningless (which was a very good thing, because there would’ve been a lot of serious contradictions in physics otherwise).
What if the hammer and the pudding interacted with the wall in exactly the same way? If they’re truly different things, it can’t happen.
Your Results May Vary.
Hee hee hee!
Since I have to interact with some people at work tonight, I’ll not be on anymore today. Not giving up though…
But I think my philosopher did prove his point. And I think I do agree with you, but only to a point. Depending on how we compare the two they are similar or say the same things or have the same effect or whatever, but why should we compare them in that way exclusively above any other? I think they are the same because: whether one is a materialist or idealist will only change the way they speak about things, not the way they act. But why should this be the important criterion?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Indeed it would. But it would have a different name. And a “rose” with any other smell would be called the same… but it would have a different smell. So what are we telling each other? 
When the wise point at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.
A rigorous empiricist has an empty knowledge-set if he disregards incomplete induction as knowledge. Do you agree with this?
A rigorous empiricist respects theories, but is ultimately only concerned with what the universe does.
Induction is useful. It is never necessarily true. We can know what we perceived, but we cannot determine the significance or meaning of what we perceived from logic alone.
But let’s not stray too far here. We’re concerned with your OP. I’m not trying to talk you into a contradiction, that is likely to happen as Godwin’s Law is. But there is some serious handwaving I’m not clear on.
My problem here is the conflict between the criteria and the method available, and your most recent post indicating
which I agree with.
However, this starts to bring us back to my earlier objections. You are setting up the stage to verify everything with evidence, but what counts as evidence is not then able to be determined by evidence without infinite regression. So there is at least one hole in your empirical examination of existence or you have an empty knowledge-set of existence (you cannot say anything exists). Or I am not understanding something and have taken a posting out of context, that’s always possible
Unecessary to what? The question is: what is existence. Does the stuff exist? Do interactions exist? In short, I have come no closer to understanding what you mean by exist because the second I get down to what you mean, you dodge it by saying these things don’t exist.
I characterized existence as “having observable properties via the senses”. Do you disagree with this? If so, do these properties exist?