Talk:Pathetic dot theory

No Objections / Criticism section?
The article seems biased without some sort of responses from other sources. For instance, the propositions based on the axiom "Code [...] is only ever made by us" implies some sort of central regulation ("us") whereas the architecture of Cyberspace is emergent and unregulated. Moreover, when faced with novel architectures, Norms, Law, and Market scrabble to adjust - and in doing so reveal their own inertias. There must be some sort of academic response along these lines. (20040302 (talk))


 * The "us" in that quote means humanity as a whole; he means in the instance that there is no "natural" computer code to be discovered like one would discover quantum tunneling behaviour which allows transistors to be built. Thus, excepting for basic physical laws which govern the behaviour and capabilities of the underlying hardware, like the Shannon-Hartley theorem, if the Internet has some property (like security, anonimity, traceability, redundancy, failure-proofing, etc.) it's because some human or group of humans wrote code or defined a protocol which granted it, even if by accident.


 * Stated as such, it sounds almost like a truism; also, social science theories are numerous enough that it's perfectly possible that no academic besides mr. Lessig ever thought of analysing this theory and either criticise or advance it, but focus on other, more academically-famous ones. --Wtrmute (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I know it's not a forum, but I find the entire proposition rather questionable. When Lessig says "We can build [...] to protect values that we believe are fundamental." He is stating that we have some conscious ability to moderate, control, or understand the code that we write. Which is just not true. Any time we devise a new protocol, software architecture, language, or library we have no way of envisaging the consequences of such actions. Lessig is saying that we have the ability to "protect values" through our self-constructed architectures but we do not.  His description of the regulatory process reflexively demonstrates that (If we accept that there are no regulatory mechanisms outside those that he delineates). His claim is similar to stating that because we are continually altering our world, we can control the future (at the least by protecting values) - but we don't even collectively share values. Likewise, Norms, Law and Market are not solely underwritten by universal physics but also by their own state (present condition) and our perceptions of them.  Whenever we develop a new cyberspace environment we do indeed discover what it is we have done much later on. For example, spam inadvertently arose from email RFCs. I contend that vast amounts of cyberspace are emergent, unanticipated and are indeed discovered.  There are other problems. It is pretty hard to distinguish much of the creativity in programming from creative solutions in mathematics - and with physics resting heavily on mathematics, we have to then limit ourselves to the idea that scientific discovery (and our ability to discover) depends very much on the languages with which we express ourselves and with which we model our universe (cf. Kuhn ). So then the distinction between cyberspace and the 'real world' is again not so well stated.


 * Your second point is possibly more important regarding WP. It sounds to me like you are saying that Lessig's views are so unimportant in the field that no-one gives them much attention. So is this article really notable? (20040302 (talk))

Naming
Some description on why it's called the "pathetic dot" theory would be appreciated. -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming 2
"Four modalities" or "Four modalities theory" would be a better name for the page. James Grimmelmann (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to have a source for that name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)