NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/compress/4280

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.3 KB

Xref: sparky comp.compression:4280 comp.ai.philosophy:7181
Newsgroups: comp.compression,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Richard Long)
Subject: Re: Compressing decimal expansion of pi (was Re: PI)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:00:30 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Easlon)
writes:
> I think the exact objects resulting from such REAL compression would
depend
> on who would be using the final compressed file.   There's a lot of
stuff
> in the background that's just noise to most people, but what's noise to
one
> person might be a vital piece of data to another.
>
> Even if the data compression program were especially written for me,
> there's a lot of things I might once have been interested in, but that
are
> just noise at the present.
Of course, you are using 'noise' in this context to mean previously
categorized (compressed) information that is not of current interest,
rather than true incompressible noise.  If you were actually getting
literal noise in your visual or auditory senses, I suggest that you would
find that most distressing and of great 'interest'.
    To make a related point, I submit that whenever we have succeeded
in fully compressing (understanding?) our environment, then everything is
fully predictable, and the accompanying emotion is BOREDOM.  In fact, we
only become interested in objects/events when they are novel or
problematic, i.e., when they are yet-to-be-compressed portions of our
environment.

>
> I would suggest that the ultimate compression would result in a file
> exactly one bit long (She loves me, she loves me not. Should I or
shouldn't
> I), but the bit only has meaning for a particular question (or decision,
or
> program branch).
In that case, your one bit only has meaning in the context of the question
'does she love me?' etc., in the same way that a pink pixel is only part
of a nipple in the context of a breast.  The fact that she loves you is
not compressible to a bit except by concatenating the question to it in a
directed way.

>
> >.. the task of creating an intelligent machine may be nothing more than
> >creating a universal data compressor.
>
> If the sole function of intelligence were to answer questions, I would
> agree.  However, I think intelligence requires not only answering
> questions, but ultimately doing something with the answers, like
surviving,
> growing, evolving, etc.
Insects can do all of these things with no intelligence whatsoever (I'm
ready to argue about whether insects have intelligence, if you are
compelled to do so).  My view is that intelligence is required to give
meaning to the environment.  VALUE, on the other hand, is a different
matter.  This is where emotion comes in.  Of course, meaning can and does
have a value in and of itself, but this is a question of
emotional/cognitive interaction, and is left as an exercise for the reader
:).


--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]