To me, insanity refers to a judgment of the rationality of an observed behavior.
Who is to say whether an exhibited mode of behavior deemed by the observer to be irrational is the product of a mental disease or the rational course of action given a more complete understanding of the world?
Shame it's massively overpriced for what it is. The only reason I bought it was it was sub-£20 from Amazon at the time, and even that's pretty steep unless they're planning some epic free expansions for it.
consciousness is simply the state of being responsive to one's environment.
it can boil down as far as gauging the responses of one neuron, but the "environment" of that neuron is its connectivity to others, so it's far more comprehensive to total consciousness up as the whole collective.
ideally, you'd be able to single out a singular and distinct "thought" and trace the workings of all your cognitive elements involved. the result of this thought then loops back through the system and re-patterns it with a "conclusion".
the chemical nature of one's neurons is the important part whether malleable or incorrigible, allowing us to exhibit unique traits and personality.
but if you're wanting inboxes to be request verification on incoming mail, it's not going to work very well for the service mails that are truly useful, like bill notifications from your creditors and the like.
and it will inconvenience the hell outta your friends and family...
ISTR that, on average, people would live to be 1000 on average if they died only from accidents/violence rather than disease and old age.
The age distribution would be different. With the simplifying assumption that everybody's chance of dying in a given year is the same, the mortality rate would be proportional to number of people alive, which means that 1000 years would be a half-life. So you'd see 1/8 of the people living to be 3000 or more years, 1/16 living to be 4000, etc.
Thanks for your feedback. I agree -- this biggest hurdle is creating the legal framework for it.
Generally, it seems to me like a natural progression. Web startups don't need VC in many cases -- they need funding closer to 20,000 than 2,000,000, and that would lower the due diligence somewhat, allowing more deals to be made. Angels are location-centric, but web startups are happening everywhere.
This would change things so that if some web startup only needs 20,000, it's a matter of 200 people around the world who believe in their idea enough to put in $100. Plus the valuation would be more market-driven.
