Just to show the circles I'm going in here:

You did not show uncomputability is a problem in that context.

Right, I showed it is a problem in the context in which you originally brought up compression -- as a means to solve the problem of intelligence.

I never claimed iterating through programs was an effective practical means of compression. So it seems as though you are attacking a straw man.

Yes, you did. Right here:

What's with complaining that compressors are uncomputable?!? Just let your search through the space of possible programs skip on to the next one whenever you spend more than an hour executing. Then you have a computable compressor. That ignores a few especially tedious and boring areas of the search space - but so what?!? Those areas can be binned with no great loss.

You also say:

Nor do I claim that compression is "a practical, all-encompassing answer to the problem of intelligence".

Again, yes you did. Right here. Though you said compression was only one of the abilities needed, you did claim "If we had good stream compressors we would be able to predict the future consequences of actions..." and predicting the future is largely what people would classify as having solved the problem of intelligence.

Okay, onlookers: please decide which of us (or both, or neither) was engaging the arguments of the other, and comment or vote accordingly.

ETA: Other than timtyler, I mean.