diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'intellect-framework-from-internet/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | intellect-framework-from-internet/starts/meaning-vm/could-be-good-could-be-bad-learning-to-live-dreaming-productively-start.txt | 70 |
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 |