|
So, "everything" is compression! |
|
What do you mean by "everything"? |
|
|
|
|
From what I see here, every cognitive process generates complexity drop. |
|
I don’t see why. |
|
|
|
|
So it seems that probability, aesthetics, creativity, relevance, responsibility, even humour, and many more, correspond to compression. |
|
Maybe it is just due to the way our brain functions. |
|
|
|
|
Or maybe one could say that any computation leads to information compression. |
|
I disagree. For instance, your brain is processing the syntax of what I’m saying, and... |
|
|
|
|
|
and you mean that there is no complexity drop when processing a sentence? |
|
Indeed! At least not at the syntactic level. |
|
|
|
|
|
And yet, once you get the syntactic structure, words fall in place, and the sequence of words becomes less complex. |
|
OK. Now I see your point. But that form of complexity reduction is quite different. |
|
|
|
|
|
You mean, it’s not a difference between expected complexity and observed complexity? |
|
That’s it. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should say that we are more concerned about "explicit" complexity drop here? |
|
Yes. The kind of compression you can experience... and talk about! |
|
|
|
|
This "explicit" form of compression is what determines surprise. |
|
To me, it’s the amazing side of complexity drop. |
|
|
|
|
|
As in fortuitous encounters: you expect to meet someone complex and you see your neighbor. |
|
My favorite is the story about Larry Kagan’s structures: you expect a complex shadow and you see something familiar projected on the wall. |
|
|
|
|
Did you see the next topic? It’s about emotion. |
|
Yes, I wonder what complexity drop has to do with emotion. |
|
|
|
|
