However, the patterns imprinted on the pieces of paper within the book are not a scarce, rivalrous resource because reproduction of these patterns doesn't consume or devalue the original pattern.
Well you might want to rephrase that, because it's obviously false. The patterns, aka words in this case, definitely have great monetary value, much more than the paper they are printed on. Making reproductions greatly devalues the original. If there are 1000 copies of a very popular story, those copies will be worth a ton. If there's 1000000 copies, they will be worth far less.
Characteristics are not scarce, rivalrous resources. For example, if you own a blue Corvette, you own the car and you own the paint on the car (both of which are scarce and rivalrous), but you do not own "the color blue".
This is not an accurate analogy. You didn't invent the color blue. If you create a piece of writing or music, you are inventing that pattern.
Things don't "have" value. Value is an expression of subjective preference that happens on an individual by individual basis. I value happiness but happiness isn't property. I value love but love isn't property. I value warm summer days but warm summer days aren't property.
Hmmm that's a really cool perspective. In my mind, it creates an implication that - if things don't have value, but can still be valued, it means the individual is the one with value, and they choose to give it out on a case by case basis. That's pretty awesome.
It takes more than a value judgment to make property. Also, the producer of a good isn't the decider of value; the consumer is. Thing are only worth what consumers are willing to pay.
Except "IP" isn't a consumer good because, as I've demonstrated, it's not even property
I don't think you did demonstrate that IP isn't property.
I reject the idea that the Consumer OR the Producer of a good decides the value. Emotional value, sure, but monetary value, no. It's not an OR situation. The producer gives it a value, and if their goal is to sell it, they may or may not lower the value to match the consumer's valuation.
Can you demonstrate a difference between emotional and monetary value given that value judgments happen in the minds of the observer? As I said earlier, value isn't "in" things; it's in the mind of the observer. I get "emotional value" from using cannabis, but it still costs money. The fact that I'm willing to part with the money in exchange for the cannabis means I get more "emotional value" from the cannabis than I do from the money.
Again I don't see how there's a difference given that assigning something a "monetary value" is the same as saying you value it more than that amount of money. I think you've made a distinction without a difference.
"That's not an accurate analogy."
It wasn't even an analogy. It was a practical example of the principles discussed.