According to subjective understandings, starting with yours. If literally not the same evidence, then I'd like for you to have discussion with idav. Cause I agree it is 'not the same' and yet you and I might disagree on how significant that matters, or how significant the change is. Yet, we seem to agree, everyone is not working by the same evidence.
Well, that's because evidence is revealed (from technology and exploration) and evolves along with the rest of the world.
"I" took it to mean other phenomenon that amount to, for sake of discussion, selves. Otherwise, we'll maybe be in semantical discussion about 'what makes for self' and since those who may disagree with this tangent of the argument, but do understand 'people are phenomenon' then I'm hoping you can go with 'selves' since you are talking about some form(s) of "I." So, hopefully you can now answer questions I asked previously.
I did not mean to imply that there are multiple selves.
But "I" appears uniformly to all separate beings.
How do you know? Honest question, since I don't believe anyone's come up with a justifiable answer to "Is this the Matrix?"
That is fundamental feature of the sofware-hardware -- to create an "I" first.
:areyoucra
Please elaborate on this idea, since I have absolutely no idea where you got it from. Hardly any software creates an "I".
Do some work yourself.
But whenever I do that, I misunderstand you.
The sense of I never changes. You wear different undercloth everyday (probably). Does that mean you change everyday?
Depending on the scope of what you consider me, yes.
All your questions repeatedly stem from your confusion of identity. You seem to have understoof only a half of Buddhism that all things are transitory. You seem not to grasp the other side that transitoriness depend on an unborn reality in order to be known and overcome.
All the transitoriness that you take as the only reality cannot be seen, recorded, known, and taught, if there was not an unchanging unborn.
Can you please justify this? It doesn't seem to follow, except for very specific ideas of "changing." An unchanging thing cannot possibly maintain a sense of time, after all.
This sounds to me like you're conflating several different levels of abstraction. A video tape might be an example of an "unchanging" medium, since no matter how many times you overwrite it, the tape remains constant. But the tape is constructed, i.e. changed from something more concrete. You could even argue that energy itself is your unchanging medium, and everything else is based on it.
And all our discussions are vain if there is nothing but transitoriness.
Ohno, nihilism!
There is answer in the first paragraph. You are not trained to see it.And you have taken upon yourself not to see. Your sayings are always like a man saying at night time that there was no sun. An author is known by his novels/poems. Consciousness is known through its manifestations.
Well, the sun is only evidenced during the daytime. There is nothing you can point to at night to say, "The sun is there."
And you've obviously never done historical analysis of authors. Understanding of a phenomenon should (and arguably must) be done by studying both input and output. I'd say you're studying only output.