We say that everything he don't perceive is also non-existent. Thus, we can say that I, for example, don't exist for you because you are not seeing me, touching me, and/or listening to me.

No, we are not saying that :) I think what these examples make clear is that our perception is limited and it is precisely because we now have this knowledge that we can override the idea that something exists permanently, that is, is unchangeably subordinate to our senses. In principle, it expresses the transformability of our own and other people's sensory perception.

What I tried to express was to make clear the difference of perception in different living beings and to emphasize the fact of change. As living beings we are subject to permanent processes, on all levels, micro and macro.

The difference we both rub against has to do with the fact that I do not recognize a fixed solid existence as such, but of course you exist and I exist in a present state - not in being, but always in becoming - and I speak of "habit" while you speak of "essence". I argue that an essence is not necessary to acknowledge my and your existence. If you lived in my city, we could go for a walk and make this conversation even more lively :)

Interestingly enough, our autonomous nervous system is called "autonomous" because my biology works in such a way that I do not have to intentionally make my heart beat or consciously control my digestion. Everything runs without my intervention. I know about the constant renewal of my cells without having to "tell" them when and how often they should renew themselves. My whole organism is geared towards flexibility, it has to cope with very different influences, which it does quite excellently. All this seems to me to be such a great complex mystery that a controlling consciously directing thought effort would not be able to cope with the millions of operations at all. Where in this complex should a fixed unit be able to "hold on" at all?

I therefore imagine my autonomous nervous system inside me in a way that we can observe it in termites, for example, which form completely organized and autonomous clusters. Where each individual being is connected by constant internal and external communication and interfaces, thus keeping the entire organism "termite structure" alive. What takes place in my organism I imagine to be many times more complex.

The color objectified as "red" by you also changes with every minute. Only we cannot see it because the process is too slow for our eyes. The red of a blossom changes constantly, it is never the same red. If you were to look at the blossom in time-lapse and under a microscope, you would suddenly see countless shades of red, perhaps even parts of orange or yellow.

The very perception that made us invent such devices is responsible to the same extent that we now know that we can only trust our perception to a limited extent, but we can also rely on it. It depends.

So when I say "red", I mean an extremely shortened, simplified process, because otherwise I would not be able to talk to you. HaHa!

I see no need to hold on to an objective beauty, because it is as clear as daylight that I find things beautiful and that I have a corresponding feeling for them.