In a message dated 8/11/2004 5:26:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: Now to my mind, a "computer program" is either a text containing instructions saying---or descriptions of---what a the computer is supposed to do _or_ it is the function---the process---that is actually performed by the computer. As a text it seems to me that the computer program should be treated as any other text, although there are many who argue that since it is not directed at communicating something to other human beings it is not entitled to such protections. (That's usually where the claim that a program is a device arises.) As a process, on the other hand, it seems to me that a computer program should only be regulated in the same way that other processes---like writing or printing or speaking---that produces signs or symbols are regulated. I hope that there are others on the list who can direct me to discussions that relate to this concern of mine. ---- Re: >>instructions saying -- or descriptions of -- >>what the computer is supposed to do. ---- Note that there you are dealing with (I think J. L. Austin originally called -- different) "directions of fit". An instruction would have "word-to-world" direction of fit. A 'description' would have "world-to-word" direction of fit. The 'direction of fit' criterion was used by Searle in his taxonomy of 'speech acts' which are _something_ *like* Austin's 'performatives'. (As R. Paul commented, Austin had to eventually abandon his theory of performatives, even though it was a cute one and one of which he was also proud of even if conscious that it was _false_.) "Direction of fit" is also used by G. Anscombe (and Grice in 'Intention and Uncertainty', the example of a shopping list that tells you what you _should_ buy or describes what you did buy). Cheers, JL ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html