Is it logical to propose that change could be an illusion?

[MindOverMatter2]

It seems impossible to me that one can perceive change and yet it be an absolute illusion.

I can see how it would be possible within the limited context of imagery. Its possible that one can put many still pictures together and create the illusion that the images are changing or moving. They do this with animation. But one requires “change” in order to create the illusion that the images are moving; one requires a process, otherwise its impossible to create the illusion.

Thus it seems to me meaningless and impossible to claim that all change is an illusion.

 

[valentino]

Its logical to propose but its illogical to believe it.Unless you believe life is an illusion and you aren’t really you.its actually ridiculous.If i hit you in the head and you said that hurts and i told you its just an illusion how would you react?

 

[JDaniel]

It seems impossible to me that one can perceive change and yet it be an absolute illusion.

I can see how it would be possible within the limited context of imagery. Its possible that one can put many still pictures together and create the illusion that the images are changing or moving. They do this with animation. But one requires “change” in order to create the illusion that the images are moving; one requires a process, otherwise its impossible to create the illusion.

Thus it seems to me meaningless and impossible to claim that all change is an illusion.

MoM:

What? Did I miss something? Who is saying that change is illusory? Why everyone knows that the only change that is illusory is the apparent change from fetus to human being! One has to be an avowed Catholic not to know that.

Seriously: change/motion are the primary observational requisites by which we know that we are immersed in “living” and “life.” My question to you is: at the aft end of change/motion are there subjects that persist? Or, do the entities become something completely other?

Do I know you?

God bless,
jd