X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.114])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87CB584F9
	for <patents@aful.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:29:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id DEE1737F68; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.182])
	by av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CF8DA37F0D; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cleosan.com (h14n2fls33o988.telia.com [213.67.225.14])
	by smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AB20637E57; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:33 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40AA8780.8070501@cleosan.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:32 +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> <40A9D153.9070905@cleosan.com> <200405182227.55382.flem@bjerke.dk>
In-Reply-To: <200405182227.55382.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:

>>Let me put it this way: Since you believe "information is material", 
> 
> Well, it was not exactly what I said. I said that information in a computer is 
> purely material/physical.

Right. You said that "in a computer, there is nothing but matter."

"Nothing but matter" is, as Popper pointed out, occult ever since 
Newton, so your assertion does not add much explanatory power. And what 
would be the difference between something that is "purely material" and 
something that is just "material"?

Or pure software patents and software patents?

> you can't conclude from an ontology of mind and matter that software should 
> not be patentable.

That statement is either dogma or not true.

>>To me, information objects are just as real as physical objects while I
>>believe my mind contimously creates images of them. 
> 
> That is hardly a belief. Rather, it is an experience. (Although I would phrase 
> it a bit differently.)

I believe I am blind. I experience I see.

But you did not comment on the existence of "information objects", which 
was the main issue.

//Erik

