Re: [Patents] Re: Re: You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

[Erik Josefsson <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