| Why does the "Software can be patented" (even if it is math)
mindset
exist?
This comment relates to the current "software patent debate"
and the
ease that others are fooled by it to thinking it is more
than it really is.
To understand how the other side thinks
and gets anchored onto their
"thoughts", that when you stand
back could be seen as being almost religious
beliefs that software patents should exist... we need to
explore their
"perceptions" that "digital stuff" is what it
is (when it is not)!
For
more about the science of how we believe... -and, how we
become TOTALLY of
a
certain frame of mind, or mindset, you need to understand
the
science of how
we form opinions (this book might explain how
the "software can be patented"
mindset forms in some
people's minds, why they hold onto those thoughts... all
that might be explained).
See (read):
Psychology of Intelligence Analysis-
html chapters
or
Free PDF version of Book
Author's Preface: "The
articles are based on reviewing
cognitive psychology literature concerning
how people
process information to make judgments on incomplete and
ambiguous
information ".
Maybe the USPTO, Mr Michael Risch, judges, etc
are all
fooled by their own "thoughts" due to structures of
perception that
exist in their minds? Such as the book
above portrays?
Michael Risch, does
not move anywhere below away from his
perception (as wrong as it is). Why?
And for how long
will he and other keep that perception?
The pro-sofware
patent folks, have a religious belief (it
can't be explained as anything else).
They believe in the
"Digital Myth" that does not exist.
Even the USPTO is
in awe of the "Digital Myth", one that is
not really real, that future
generations will look back, and
laugh at how ignorant that people were to be
fooled by the
medicine man with the new "fire" that he controls.
To clarify
the Digital Myth and it's elements (generally) -
please watch this CSPAN and
Library of Congress video (with Brian Cantwell Smith), the
segment
called:
"Digital
Future: Meaning of Digital"
This is a CSPAN Digital Future
Series presentation where
Brian Cantwell Smith's lecture is titled "And Is All
This
Stuff Really Digital After All"?- ...where the speaker notes
that future
generations will *not* be so impressed and
fooled by "the Digital
Myth),
Re: The Video -
Pay attention to "The Myth of the
Green Line" vs the reality
of the yellow line. And think of what is shown to
us in
the "Psychology of Intelligence Analysis" book.
Do you now
understand how easy it is for people to believe
(even to the point of going to
war) over what they believe
in their minds?
Where we see part of the
discussion of "judgements" made
related, today about software patents is also
applied (and clearly pointed out) when you view the video
where Brian Cantwell
Smith explains the Digital Myth.
The problems of the reality of the yellow
line, is that it
is fixed, and is turned into as close as we can get, by the
"MATH"... as it is all math, and
everything on top of it is based on "MATH" as
well. And, the
green
line, when you really examine it closely, is also messy,
not
as perfect as we
would think it to be, or the illustration in the video
shows.
No magic, just math.
Any new application (copyright applies to
protect) on top of
the mess. Is just a story
that needs to deal with the mess
in order to run.
So, the question and problem, is the same as what
"scientists" thru all ages have had when running into
"mindsets that become
almost religious".
Per Brian Cantwell Smith, it might take a whole
generation
for the "Digital Myth" belief (that is wrong) to die off,
before
the reality changes where the correct mindset
replaces it (meaning the existing
wrong mindset, needs maybe, per Cantwell, to be replaced by
the next, or
younger generation,
where the they have grown up KNOWING MORE about Digital,
and
so the "real" reality is obvious to them because they don't
have
any old
mental baggage to alter their perceptions.
Software is math, and it is sad
to think we might have to
wait until the next generation for it to be
understood as
such.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
