1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
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
|
