I'm confused and am handling multiple unexpected systems issues

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 70 deletions

diff --git a/intellect-framework-from-internet/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt b/intellect-framework-from-internet/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 4b9b421..0000000
--- a/intellect-framework-from-internet/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
-heuristic core process
-concepts are marked makes-good, makes-bad
-time is spent exploring what could make or avoid them
-based on processing these marks.
-	exploring them 'uses up' the marks.
-	either finding an option,
-	or exhaustively showing there is no option.
-		so the marks are associated with 'options', 'possibilities'.
-	possible that this time is called daydreaming or worrying.
-		considered poor uses of time in extreme, when we have roughly
-		solutions to our larger problems already.
-what could-make-good?  what could-make-bad?
-	experience likely builds habits that show these
-
-	could-be-good, could-be-bad
-	first our experiences that are possibly causally related to what is good or
-	bad get marked this way
-		with what good thing might happen, or what bad thing might happen
-	then we live, in imagination, around expanding that understanding.
-			to see whether or not the good or bad thing might happen
-		
-		imagination has relevence habits too, such that we don't need to
-		live everything when imagining.  we can re-use experiences to speed
-		it up.
-
-	(additionally, we want to combine the meaning of our knowledge
-	 so we spend time exploring concepts that share meaning parts,
-	 so as to include any missing implications)
-		it is good to do this.  yes.
-
-		as concepts, we need to live our meaning. it is our purpose in life.
-		meaning has distance, spread across a 'graph' of concepts karl calls
-		it, but also time.  time must be spent providing for meaning
-		development; to strengthen and judge the relevence
-			it looks like this time could be analogous to expansion
-			on small scale
-	biologically, we may for example cry, or hold awe
-	karl proposes as we do this, we are combining informational meaning
-	that the emotional intensity may be interchangeable with the
-	behavior of expansion of relevent meaning.
-		where this expansion is labeling things could-be-good, could-be-bad,
-		with relevent association on the labels, and acting relevently on
-		them as we produce/discover them.
-
-	awe could be a new discovery, a way of doing something that is useful
-	crying could be something bad, which must hold information on what is good
-
-	it is good to work in ways we know, to avoid things that are bad
-	propose it is bad to work in new ways without relevent understanding of what might happen
-	it is good to combine the meaning of our knowledge, so we find relevent implications
-		random behavior on anything other than a notepad is bad
-			notepad == imagination
-		if random behavior cannot leave the imagination, it is good
-			a notepad, an imagination, must store what happens in it
-		exhaustive behavior is better than random behavior
-			especially if done in relevent order.
-			some trials may obviate others.
-				random behavior that never completes
-				is better than exhaustive behavior that never completes
-				karl proposes random order is better than iterative order
-
-we have spaces of imagination, where we can craft ideas of what will happen based
-on what we know.  navigating these spaces lets us build experience without trial.
-
-the core of learning to learn, would ideally be composed of an imagination of
-the process of learning.  _should_ be solvable by a simple limited context bubble
-		yes, imagination appears to be subcontexts + knowledge relevent
-		to being in imagination rather than reality
-		since the space of learning is already imaginative, little extra
-		knowledge might be needed