On 9/27/07, "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason writes:
> > A given piece of data can represent an infinite number of different
> > things depending on the software that interprets it.  What may be an
> > mp3 file to one program may look like snow to an image editor.
> I'm doubtful that you could find a string of any significant length which
> both sounds like sensible music and looks like a realistic picture. I'm
> even more doubtful that the enormous length of the data that would
> represent the brain activity associated with an observer-moment could
> be meaningfully interpreted as anything else.
> My guess is that sufficiently long, meaningful data strings have
> their meaning implicitly within themselves, because there is no
> reasonable-length program that can interpret them as anything else.
I'm not yet qualified to engage in in-depth discussion on this list, but re
this point: what is 'reasonable-length'? Why is interpreter supposed to be
limited? If it is, how should it be limited? If interpreter is just
'assumed' and not encoded in any form, can't it be an arbitrary thing, up to
containing all the knowledge you need for any resulting interpretation?

Vladimir Nesov                            mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to