4 ms·

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ng/words_as_hidden_inferences/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ng/words_as_hidden_inferences/ See, the word "property" is full of connotations.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ng/words_as_hidden_inferences/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ng/words_as_hidden_inferences/ See, the word "property" is full of connotations. Ownership has deep roots in our culture. Heck, even babies rapidly develop a sense of property (just try and take something from their hands). On the other hand, few babies would complain if someone were to imitate them. On the contrary, that's a fundamental developmental need: the baby makes a sound, then her Mom barges in, imitates her, and we have the beginning of a communication. Even on a purely technical basis, the world of ideas is nothing like the physical world: if I eat your banana, you can't eat it any more. If you eat it, I can't steal it from you any more. But if you have an idea, and you tell me about it, well I can't steal it from you. I can use the idea, I can claim it was my idea to begin with, but I can't erase the idea from your mind —which is a required component of stealing. The only actual "idea thief" I know of is Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry potter. The word "property", as most people understand it, doesn't apply to ideas. "Intellectual property" is a type error. But since we're incredibly lenient compilers, we make sense of whatever doesn't. So we can accept the term "intellectual property" somehow. But in doing so, we develop an intuitive understanding of the world that just isn't accurate. I'd rather believe true things.

baddox 13y ago
That's just another appeal to "true meanings." It's a bogus argument, because it's a semantic argument masquerading as a genuine argument for a particular value judgement. If you don't like the things referred to as "intellectual property" by the overwhelming majority of people who use the term, like patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., your argument shouldn't be "but that's not the true meaning of 'property,' therefore 'intellectual property' is bad." Simply claiming that your definition of a term is different from someone else's definition of the same term does absolutely nothing to support your or his side of the argument. > So we can accept the term "intellectual property" somehow. The "somehow" is that it is a well-accepted and well-understood term with a very standard meaning, used by the vast majority of English speakers who discuss such matters. The spelling of the term doesn't matter. It could be called "intellectual schmoperty" for all I care, and if that was the term that was well-accepted, we could all use that and be understood.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Are you one of those fools who believe we can define words any way we want? Meditate on this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ What I'm saying is, the term "intellectual property" messes with our heads in a way that is difficult to compensate for. Words do have true meanings, you know: it's whatever comes to our minds when we read or hear them. And I mean everything that comes to mind, not just what is supposed to come to mind. Take "shit", for instance. It's not just what comes out of our butts. It stinks, it sticks, it's disgusting. These secondary associations and feelings are what we refer to when we say "shitty code" or something. Nobody in their right mind would try to apply the term to a masterfully crafted gem. It would never fly. Let's try a though experiment. Replace "intellectual property" by "intellectual monopoly". Do you feel the difference? No? I don't believe you. --- I agree the term "intellectual property" is well accepted. But it is not well understood. Most people wrongly believe intellectual property and physical property are analogous. Many people (especially those in power) wrongly believe stealing a film is like stealing an apple. But I assume you understand the term well, and therefore don't fall prey to these gross fallacies. You're quite an exception, not being sensitive to this "intellectual property" piece of Novlang.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I'm saying that we can choose to define a word any way we want, but we shouldn't use non-standard definitions if our goal is to be understood. And, more importantly, arguing over "true meanings" of words when pretending to debate value judgements is one of the most common and ridiculous pitfalls that people fall into. That article on lesswrong seems to agree with my point. "Intellectual property" is a specific term that has a specific and well-accepted definition, both as a legal definition and in common everyday usage. > Words do have true meanings, you know: it's whatever comes to our minds when we read or hear them. I completely disagree. Words are meant for communication. I say a word, and you hear it. My goal is for the idea in my head to map to the same idea in your head. That's why I should be aware of my audience, and shouldn't use words in non-standard ways. If you go around using the term "intellectual property" and you don't mean patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., then you should expect to be misunderstood. And if you base your argument against IP protection laws on what you claim to be the "true definition" of "property," you're not actually arguing the relevant value judgement. You're just making a semantic argument. > Replace "intellectual property" by "intellectual monopoly". Do you feel the difference? Of course I feel the difference. One is an extremely common term that is fairly well-defined in legal and other circles, while the other is an ad hoc description of a similar or identical concept. And both would include patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. What's your point? > I agree the term "intellectual property" is well accepted. But it is not well understood. The definition of the term is well understood. Perhaps the economic consequences of the idea itself are not well understood or widely agreed upon, but the definition is. That's why I advocate for debating the value judgement of the concept, rather than the definition of the term. And, to be clear, though it's not particularly relevant to whether semantic arguments are worthwhile, I do oppose all forms of government-enforced intellectual property protection.

baddox 13y ago

That's just another appeal to "true meanings." It's a bogus argument, because it's a semantic argument masquerading as a genuine argument for a particular value judgement. If you don't like the things referred to as "intellectual property" by the overwhelming majority of people who use the term, like patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., your argument shouldn't be "but that's not the true meaning of 'property,' therefore 'intellectual property' is bad." Simply claiming that your definition of a term is different from someone else's definition of the same term does absolutely nothing to support your or his side of the argument. > So we can accept the term "intellectual property" somehow. The "somehow" is that it is a well-accepted and well-understood term with a very standard meaning, used by the vast majority of English speakers who discuss such matters. The spelling of the term doesn't matter. It could be called "intellectual schmoperty" for all I care, and if that was the term that was well-accepted, we could all use that and be understood.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Are you one of those fools who believe we can define words any way we want? Meditate on this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ What I'm saying is, the term "intellectual property" messes with our heads in a way that is difficult to compensate for. Words do have true meanings, you know: it's whatever comes to our minds when we read or hear them. And I mean everything that comes to mind, not just what is supposed to come to mind. Take "shit", for instance. It's not just what comes out of our butts. It stinks, it sticks, it's disgusting. These secondary associations and feelings are what we refer to when we say "shitty code" or something. Nobody in their right mind would try to apply the term to a masterfully crafted gem. It would never fly. Let's try a though experiment. Replace "intellectual property" by "intellectual monopoly". Do you feel the difference? No? I don't believe you. --- I agree the term "intellectual property" is well accepted. But it is not well understood. Most people wrongly believe intellectual property and physical property are analogous. Many people (especially those in power) wrongly believe stealing a film is like stealing an apple. But I assume you understand the term well, and therefore don't fall prey to these gross fallacies. You're quite an exception, not being sensitive to this "intellectual property" piece of Novlang.
- baddox 13y ago
  I'm saying that we can choose to define a word any way we want, but we shouldn't use non-standard definitions if our goal is to be understood. And, more importantly, arguing over "true meanings" of words when pretending to debate value judgements is one of the most common and ridiculous pitfalls that people fall into. That article on lesswrong seems to agree with my point. "Intellectual property" is a specific term that has a specific and well-accepted definition, both as a legal definition and in common everyday usage. > Words do have true meanings, you know: it's whatever comes to our minds when we read or hear them. I completely disagree. Words are meant for communication. I say a word, and you hear it. My goal is for the idea in my head to map to the same idea in your head. That's why I should be aware of my audience, and shouldn't use words in non-standard ways. If you go around using the term "intellectual property" and you don't mean patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., then you should expect to be misunderstood. And if you base your argument against IP protection laws on what you claim to be the "true definition" of "property," you're not actually arguing the relevant value judgement. You're just making a semantic argument. > Replace "intellectual property" by "intellectual monopoly". Do you feel the difference? Of course I feel the difference. One is an extremely common term that is fairly well-defined in legal and other circles, while the other is an ad hoc description of a similar or identical concept. And both would include patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. What's your point? > I agree the term "intellectual property" is well accepted. But it is not well understood. The definition of the term is well understood. Perhaps the economic consequences of the idea itself are not well understood or widely agreed upon, but the definition is. That's why I advocate for debating the value judgement of the concept, rather than the definition of the term. And, to be clear, though it's not particularly relevant to whether semantic arguments are worthwhile, I do oppose all forms of government-enforced intellectual property protection.