X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.108])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBE6537D9
	for <patents@aful.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:32:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id A32EA37E5E; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:03:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163])
	by av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 93C7537E43; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:03:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cleosan.com (h14n2fls33o988.telia.com [213.67.225.14])
	by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5284937E61; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:03:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40A9D153.9070905@cleosan.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:03:15 +0200
From: Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040229)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Flemming Bjerke <flem@bjerke.dk>
Cc: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: Re:  You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal
References: <20040514181701.40314570FB@stabilite.aful.org> <200405172210.43409.flem@bjerke.dk>
In-Reply-To: <200405172210.43409.flem@bjerke.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Validation-by: ehj@cleosan.com

Flemming Bjerke wrote:
> Fredag 14 maj 2004 20:17 wrote erik@sslug.dk about [Patents] Re: Re:  You have 
> rights.. Software Patents are Illegal:
> 
>>Since you don't believe in the "realm of the mind", you are left with an
>>inferior model where only political arguments can be used against software
>>patents.
> 
> 1. Please notice, I have never expressed any doubt of the existence of the 
> mind (that is a very problematic position). But, that the mind should be 
> characterised as a realm, is much less certain. Please notice also, "realm" 
> in this connection is a metaphore.
> 2. It looks like your argument does not comply with the rules of logic: You 
> cannot conclude from A is not the case (not believing in ..) to B is the case 
> (only political arguments ...).

Let me put it this way: Since you believe "information is material", you 
are left with a model where ontological arguments can hardly be used 
against software patents.

When I say "information on a carrier", you say only "carrier" since 
"information" does not exist as a separate object, right?

To me, information objects are just as real as physical objects while I 
believe my mind contimously creates images of them. I also believe they 
exist independently of my mind and of course that there is no such thing 
as a "reality check", only communication methodology.

As you say, the philosophical questions are not settled, but which 
questions are? Any explanatory model is always flawed. Which one you 
choose is finally a non-logical or non-scientific decision.

Meaning of "meaning" discussions are IMHO dead ends, and the reason the 
post-modernist tradition of deconstruction never appealed to me. To 
quote the TBA: "it is necessary to determine the exact meaning of the 
expression "as such"" is like a division by zero - it has no meaning.

You see what I mean?

;-)

//Erik

