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