Thank you for your reply! So regarding this discussion about “EDIT 2”, my conclusion is that saying “everything changes” is not useful… But to expand:
Actualists explain everything in terms of the physical world. We know for a fact that life emerges from purely physical systems. I think it’s correct to state that actualists would say that consciousness emerges from purely physical systems. Saying “everything is physical” may be an overgeneralization if you argue that physical and metaphysical are not antonyms, which I guess you can. Yet that was my point: “everything is physical” → “everything physical changes” → “therefore everything changes”. Instinctual passions are included too, since they are physical (chemical) processes. But at this point it’s philosophizing at a level that doesn’t really lead anywhere.
If I was to summarise your paragraph in effect it would be saying that ‘you’ the identity can intellectually understand that “what you are” is a perfect physical body with it’s senses - that is not a fact, what ‘you’ are as an identity is an illusion arising out of blind nature’s survival package.
I get what you are saying. I was referring to the schematics from Peter. “Who I am” as the identity and “what I am” as the physical body with its senses. I could say too that it is not a fact that “what ‘you’ are as an identity is an illusion arising out of blind nature’s survival package”. As Peter put’s it, “‘What I am’ has always been here”. But I think we may be wasting too much time debating what at this point seems to be linguistics 