Memory is the current spacetime location's fuzzy view when looking towards the past. Imagination is the fuzzy view when looking forwards to the future or with the many-worlds view, imagination is the looking out(?) towards multiple outcomes.
Consciousness is the step towards the next point in the many world multiverse.
Without the ability to be blind to the future, life as we know it wouldn't exist. Nothing conscious would take risks and so complexity couldn't evolve.
If you could glance to the future and see all of the laid out spacetime, there wouldn't be any interesting exploration of it.
So we have to be blinkered just to exist with this level of insight into the complexities of the universe.
This has always baffled me about these projects. I think the only thing I heard of that sounded like it may be feasible was Golem [0], as that's about renting out real world hardware. And I've no idea if it is, but I can imagine it could be something where it's all programmatic, distributed, transactional and verifiable, but I can also imagine it being full of real world holes.
Or I guess namecoin [1] sounds like it could work with a critical mass for adoption. But it seems to be a real subset of real world problems that are solvable. Things that inherently make sense being protocols and distributed I guess, I'm not sure if there are other classes of problems that could work well as 'web3' things
I wonder if this could be used as a step towards explaining innate abilities. You're born with a human brain capable or language. A giraffe is born with a brain capable of walking.
There's just some predefined wiring that is a good bet, and the expression into a phenotype or some other mechanism for encoding some of this knowledge in future generations.
Future AI can just start off with a good baseline and build from there.
The vast majority of our waking hours are spent pondering things that are not in the least bit real like this.
Just memes that only humans are aware of and believe in.
This airport is as real as a song, as santa, as a country, a law, the value of money, words.
In fact, an overwhelming majority of things that we generally perceive to be real are only things that exist in the shared consciousness of human beings.
The only difference between santa and a law is just how strongly people believe in and how many people willingly support the latter.
But santa and laws are of the exact same category of made up ideas that we choose to believe in and that influence our group behaviour.
Some things do exist, like the combination of materials that make up buildings that we inhabit.
But their meaning and purpose and ownership and the reasons we enter them and the vast majority of what buildings mean to us aren't in the least bit real.
I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to find out that ant and bee colonies also share their own memes that help structure their societies.
And much of what we percieve as real isn't. Your senses are used as an input to a model rather than being available in a raw form and we percieve the model. For example your brain takes a stream of data from your eyes as they flick in different directions and different focus levels. But what you percieve is a fully rendered model with no edges and an understanding of depth. But it is always an abstraction. The yellow blob at the edge of your field of view may be a lion rather than a wheat field. And the car 100m away could be the size of a mountain.
Let's go even deeper: "Ship of Theseus" applied to intersubjective phenomena GP described. In one sense, any institution, culture, law or religion that outlives the founding generation is fully Ship-of-Theseus-sed already.
Perhaps every single utterance/communication of any intersubjective phenomena is already ship-of-theseus-sed by the time it leaves the mouth of the speaker.
Probably by the time the brain of the speaker has processed the thought.
The mere passage of time means that the original meme no longer exists in its original form. Communicating a single idea to another individual creates a wholly new slightly mutated copy of the original idea.
Low wages, high inflation, general financialization of everything resulting in more people working or working multiple jobs to keep their heads above water.
Much less expendable income means economic contraction.
Just working more to afford necessities isn't the same thing as putting money back into the economy. Less disposable income across society means lower economic activity.
If you follow that reason then it's rational that there are crashes after peaks (cashing out), and it's still rational that it will keep rising to a point that it reaches its true value (whatever that is).
The peaks and troughs will flatten out as that happens.
Could well all be wrong. But so far that seems to be the pattern.
With libraries that alter your path at runtime. I've encountered comments on issues that implied that this wasn't a complete hack. I have had the impression that this is all just overhead in getting an environment up and running, and not taken for granted that you should be able to achieve repeatable isolation relatively simply.
So I think even if one of those packaging tools worked really well, a library somewhere could undo your best efforts at isolation.
I also don't hate python itself, but I wish the one way of doing things ethos applied to managing dependencies and python versions.
I don't understand what the problem is:
1) you install ONE version of python, more can't coexist in your environment usually
2) then you install your packages in a venv (because python provides tools to configure this)
Only part 2 is a problem of the Python ecosystem, part 1 is a problem of any environment to run binary programs. It applies to C-compilers, node, ..., perl...
Naturally, as most people involved with Python seemed to agree with that view, there was a lot of room for "improvement". And people got their improvement aplenty. Other people just realized that this is a general problem and nowadays instead of keeping around their /opt they now use something like spack. Which allows you to install a range of python-versions just fine. As well as C-Compilers. As well as perl-versions.
Completely anecdotal but I seem to remember flies banging their heads on windows a lot more when I was younger.
Now they seem to be able to navigate their way out with comparative ease. Open a door or window and waft them in the general direction and they seem to be able to escape.
I've been wondering for a few years if this was evolution.
Please tell me where you live so I can move there. My flies are as dumb as ever, I can't even get them to go out the window with me actively trying to kill them. They rather take their chances with the swatter or get tangled behind the curtains.
From an evolutionary perspective it would seem wrong to actively go towards the source of stress when the opposite direction clearly leads to safety. But then again what do I know. Perhaps my flies are adrenaline junkies.
I've had two birds fly into my living room window this week. I haven't even cleaned it recently. The flies may be evolving but robins have a ways to go yet.
edit: no I'm wrong, it's early here and I've not had coffee