diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt | 70 |
1 files changed, 70 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt b/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4b9b421 --- /dev/null +++ b/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +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 |