This is exactly what I got wrong when I started learning jazz piano as an adult. My wife is a lifelong musician and I got to the annoying point where I'd be playing and she'd walk by and go "that third chord sounds wrong." I'd ask why and she'd be unable to elaborate until she sat down and played the better version intuitively. Then she'd retroactively analyze what she did to explain it to me. I understood the theory, she understood the sounds. It was always humbling and helped me understand that intellectualizing comes second.
> changing how you in particular perceive the world does not actually change the world that you are a part of
It's impossible to change yourself without changing the world, because those two things are not separate.
Further, much of the world exists only as abstract ideas in my mind. When I change how I relate to and perceive them, I do change them in every way that matters.
If by "you" you mean the totality of the universe that you are a part of, then changing "your" consciousness does change the world, but if you think of yourself as merely an individual subject--not a subject as substance--then nothing you do to "yourself" will lead to liberation, because others inability to find liberation creates a contradiction within your own.
Sure, if you discount the fact that other people exist, are conscious, have their own experiences of the same world and also experience joy, sadness, love, and suffering.
To assert that your perspective is the only thing that matters is to assert that nobody else matters.
its a matter of perspective. if everyone is one, no one indeed matters, nor exists. This is not discounting anyone nor any fact. what does not exist cannot be discounted.
This feels a lot like a standard line of muddy thinking we see in youtube videos about consciousness (for example): "we don't understand brains, and we don't understand quantum mechanics, so they're probably related."
It's easy to speculate, but it's not easy to find any evidence at all to back up those guesses. It's still not clear that this has anything to do with consciousness or information processing or AWS datacenters.
There's evidence that biology takes advantage of quantum effects on all levels - all the way from individual chemical bonds and interactions of molecules (quantum biochemistry) up to cellular and multi-cellular. Mostly because there's no way it could work on such small scales and be so energy efficient if it didn't.
So one thing is certain - the brain does use quantum mechanics just like the rest of the body, because otherwise it wouldn't be possible to have so much done inside such a small volume, with such small amounts of energy.
Of course this question is actually meant to be "is brain a quantum computer?" and we don't have any idea.
Meh, down voters have no idea what they're talking/reading about and yet they down vote. Not everything about quantum mechanics is voodoo. Sorry, not in the mood to talk about this here any more.
The Wikipedia page is a good start, it has some relevant references to research articles in the Enzyme catalysis and Energy transfer sections: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology
Quantum effects are also used inside cells to convert chemical energy to motion. It wouldn't be possible otherwise at that nanoscale.
> That's a pretty extreme interpretation. Anyone who downloads the IDE can create and publish a game. If kids are using the tool, making fun games, and sharing them with other people, than I think that's a good thing.
I think this is correct. I play Go at a strong amateur level, and on the 19x19 board, I can often fully recall 200+ move games against "normal" opponents, because the moves tell a story that makes sense. But if I play someone much weaker or much stronger who makes a lot of unexpected moves, I'll have trouble remembering those moments.
