reposted. I added a bit more context and an example. Maybe it was viewed as a glib post? Either way if there is a problem with it let me know and I will edit.

I’ll just post it again I guess. Maybe a mistake somewhere?

not important. Autocorrect

You were the one buttering the colloquial term ‘change’ not me. Everything we know of remains similar enough to call it the same. Nothing remains the same for humans because everything is subject entropy.

There is no ethical dilemma then.

NO: one cannot torture a child nor kill a child even if it saves the entire human species. — Bob Ross

Someone would.

If that is the case then to say anything stays the same is a fallacy and it would also make the term is/change identical.

Same effectively means similar enough to be called the same. It is not some absolute term.

You are a social animal. There is no denying this.

It is not clear to me to what extent we are dependent on social interactions. — javi2541997

Every single extent. Humans need humans as much as they need food or water. Just because we can learn to survive longer and longer without human interactions does not displace the fact that imagination/psychosis will substitute the sensations of social interactions. Writing is clearly one method of ‘replacing’ social interactions.

Surely we all know that the point at which the changes to the ship make it a different ship is not clearly defined. — Ludwig V

It is pretty clear. Piece by piece if every part is replaced it is still ‘the original’ as it is their ship. Someone collecting and reassembling the parts produce their own ship not someone else’s ‘original’ ship.

Words can sometimes trick the mind.

I was commenting on that particular sentiment because when we write or speak it is undoubtedly done within a communal framework. What is said can be heard or read by anyone, just as anything we think is also partly imbued with the community held in mind.

We cannot act outside of human social interactions. On a superficial level we can state that we do not write something for anyone but by stating so we do actually appreciate that we usually do and therefore cannot escape that expressing anything is a reaching-out into the world not some isolated incident.

See what I mean?

It is a gradable antonym at best.

What evidence do you base this opinion on?

Just curious. It helps to make your point clear so others can understand why you think what you think.

literature or the art of writing is an individualistic or collectivist act. — javi2541997

It is a false distinction. Assuming one can exist with the complete absence of the other is clearly just that, an assumption. One that has little to no ground to hold it up once you analysis what is actually being suggested.

The reason this is important, is that it then establishes some other more interpretive things. That is to say, you cannot in reality have a person born under different circumstances (prior to the point of conception) because those circumstances would almost certainly result in a different set of gametes, and hence a different person than the one that is reflecting back on the altered history. — schopenhauer1

This is incorrect. There are various factors that happen prior to conception that contribute to development.

Circumstances are effectively ‘the environment’ and given that the environment is forever changing what happens prior to conception has an obvious effect on items within said environment. The only way out of this is belief in some form of dualism.

So saying that person A is person A is basically a waste of time. There is nothing here and I confused why there is a needless back and forth debating why YOU is important as some non-existent being that is never non-existent because YOU exist. It is just words used to screen clarity I feel.

That a thing cannot itself is kind of true, but to say that something cannot be effected by anything else is rather silly.

I do not believe you. You can read therefore you can think in words.

I agree that some thing must be known. For me a human definition of knowledge has more than raw data involved. I view knowledge as having weight dependent upon time.

Historical knowledge becomes less and less concrete as the physical items of the past recede into the distance. Abstractions are atemporal, but they are limited in application to items that involve all the nuances of human experience.

A quick note about ‘illusion’.

If everything perceived is an ‘illusion’ then the term has no meaning. Either there are perceptions that are illusions and perceptions that are not illusions or there are no perceptions.

Language is useful if adhered to.

I think there is a case for private billionaires as they are able to do things groups or governments cannot due to pressures of opinion.

There is something special in having a few people able to actually shake things up a little. Such as with Elon Musk.

I do wonder though whether or not people like him would be inhibited or not by caps on wealth? Guess we will never know (well, at least for a good few decades!).

There blatantly is. But the US has been rightwing for as long as I have been alive.

You cannot call several instances of cheap/free healthcare anything but leftwing. Stop being silly.

I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. The western world turned away from it. The opposing perspective didn't win by a blitzkrieg, but by giving the people what they wanted. — frank

Not really. The US has always been right-wing, but there is plenty of leftism in Europe.

order of pain

2, 1 then 3 most probably. I guess it could be argued that trying to to cause pain may actually cause more pain that scenario 1 thoough.

I was merely assuming that such a truth could exist and that some peole would be able to figure it out eventually.

World 3 would would pretty quickly stop being a world. With no morality there is more of a chance people would kill babies but maybe not to the extent that the species would cease to exist.

Often on philosophy forums ;)

You seriously think there are no instances where someone has said something is nonsense only to later be proven wrong? Strange.

Anyway, this is just degenerated into pointless back and forth so I am out. Bye :)

You think there are no grey areas?

I was taking an extreme example to highlight that there are grey areas.

100% subjectivity is pretty much where we all begin. We are not given a manual about how to perceive reality or what reality is.

I am not denying your seeing it or imagining it, but it must be UNREAL. — Corvus

But what if it is not? Of course if I said to you I saw a flying elephant you would question my mental faculties … but maybe I actually did and there are genetically modified elephants flying around somewhere.

You see how you see. It is a matter of subjectivity.

What you see and claim to know is necessarily limited.

what it real can be criticises and speculated upon.

Honestly, there is nothing here to talk about bye :)

I never said anything about anything being ‘true’.

I try to be precise. Corvus replaced ‘perceived’ with ‘imagined’ and now you have replaced ‘real’ with ‘true’.

If I see a flying elephant I would probably assume it is some kind of holographic projection when the reality is that it is a genetically engineered creature that looks very, very much like a flying elephant. It could just be a hallucination. Either way the experience is real for me.

If you find that impossible to take onboard I doubt we have anything much more to say to each other on this topic. Such is life :)

So you must really mean that the term ‘delusion’ is meaningless because we can never verify about their experience.

This is a little like saying Canada does not exist because I have never been there. Merely heresay.

Scepticism only makes sense to a certain degree.

it can just be used to defend any erroneous claim by declaring yourself deluded. — AmadeusD

? What are you talking about? If you are deluded you are deluded. You do not choose to be deluded. If you are pretending to be deluded you are lying.

That is not the only thing Kant was writing about. He wrote about wide variety of topics. — Corvus

In COPR this was the initial question. Of course he wrote other books …

After all you brought in the term 'Real' in your claim. — Corvus

False. You asked me the question using that term regarding my seeing an elephant flying (not ‘imagining’ one flying). What is sensible to me is real to me unless I recognise an illusion. What is a delusion is obviously beyond my examination (because a delusion is believed).

It would have no use, in this case. It is self-evidence that we do not share experiences. It is their comparison resulting in consistency or deviation that matters, and helps us delineate what we can rely on from what we cannot. I suppose, for an idealist this doesn't matter though so I could be barking up the wrong tree. — AmadeusD

We share an approximation of experiences. If we did not we would be nothing much to each other.

What about a rainbow? We all see them yet they are not there. The illusion is an objective one though, so whilst we can say it is not real in one sense (being an illusion) we share a common experience of it.

Your saying that you see a flying elephant and it is real to you, is a self-contradiction.
Because the flying elephant was an unreal object to you and to the world. You were seeing an unreal flying elephant. — Corvus

Different uses of terms. Nothing more. No contradiction. It is a real thought not an unreal thought … what would an ‘unreal’ thought be?

Equating ‘truths’ has necessary limitations. For my consciousness and experience I have no idea what my limitations are so application of ‘truth’ in the existing world is an overreach.

If I said the elephant does not exist and does exist then that is different. I used ‘real’ as a relative function of personal experience. I can imagine something and you have no idea what it is. It is possible for you to imagine similar things. Imagining something is a real experience, just as seeing a tree with your eyes is a real experience. How this maps onto what is existent is another matter and kind of what Kant went into in a deep way in terms of investigating what can be known prior to experience.

I doubt the OP is asking about English grammar. — hypericin

I am pretty sure I caught that. Hence me not assuming ignorance. I interpreted it as Action versus Innate Qualities or some such thing.

what do you know about your flying elephant? — Corvus

I know that it is there. I also know that my experience is limited. I generally have little reason to disbelieve what I experience. What I believe is real for me is real for me and may or may not relate to what you believe is real for you.

In a more broader sense I know via what Kant called Intuitions. Even with abstract items like numbers they are only known as abstracted from our ‘appreciation’ (for want of a better term) of the spaciotemporal.

What about you? If you see an elephant flying in the sky how do you know about it?

I already answered. It is ‘real’ to me. We experience what we experience. There is no ‘knowing’ for me in any absolute sense.

Now, how do you know what you perceive is ‘real’? If you answer your own question it might help, unless you find it meaningless?

Do you have a point or are you just going to throw out facile questions?

You are effectively asking me what I know about how I perceive anything. Right back at you. You can perceive what you perceive so tell us all what you know about what you perceive perhaps?

Frankly I find it to be a ridiculous question BUT given that you asked it I imagine if you answer it it may shed light on where you are going with this.