I'm saying that the concept you're using for 'meaningful change' is a light shade of grue, looking unusual and gerrymandered to exclude huge past changes while including things like good mood-elevating drugs that are quite natural extrapolations of our expanding biological knowledge.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand why you consider those things interesting or relevant. To me, a concept of the human experience that includes computation or material strengths seems unusual and gerrymandered.

At this point it really does seem like we're just playing reference class tennis, though.