A fair question. Depends on how you define touch. But probably the answer is yes, you can propriocept things you don't touch. Suppose you were to anesthetize a

A fair question. Depends on how you define touch. But probably the answer is yes, you can propriocept things you don't touch. Suppose you were to anesthetize all the nerves leading to your skin. If you define touch in a way that's limited to skin interacting with stuff outside the body, then that would neutralize your sense of touch. But according to the article, there are "piezo2" receptors embedded in muscle fibers. They can tell you how much the muscle is stretched or contracted. So even without using touch or sight, you could tell whether (say) your elbow is bent or straight based on information coming from your biceps and triceps muscles. One could imagine a body that doesn't have this and works by some combination of dead reckoning (where the brain knows it pulled on the muscles this much, therefore the limb must have moved that much, and keeps a running total), sight, and cues from how the limbs are interacting with the outside world. But the article says it isn't just that. Instead, the brain is getting direct information from muscles. You could, though, make a case that touch should be generalized and this should be included in it. The article says piezo2 receptors are used both in touch and in muscles. If you wanted, you could define touch to include sensations within the body, where this part of this muscle is touching this other part of the same muscle and feeling that.