p.(x) = Big Data Determinism (2020) by Daniel Sanderson - #Googleplanksip

Fragmentation is a comfortable scientific remnant of inquiry and “bottom-up” categorization. Acknowledging the contribution of reductionist inquiry is beyond the scope of this book but the benefits are manifest. Pluralistic perspectives, on the other hand, open up alternative methods of viewing reality. Is this a good thing? If the perspective provided has the potential of benefiting an individual or group, I would say it’s worthy of consideration and evaluation. How do we evaluate the wholeness? The bottom-up approach of causation is valid yet, used in conjunction with Big Data, yields new insights into the completeness of information as a whole. Wholeness from a traditional standpoint is influenced by Eastern sensibilities, which often conflict with Western philosophies. The statistical analysis of Big Data provides us with rich data sets and empirical probabilities worthy of exploration. Correlations should be algorithmic and objectively interpreted through individual autonomy, widening the discussion and giving the field of philosophy instrumental truths. Instrumental is a watchword for control except in a performance. Instrumental anything implies a purpose. Purpose-driven activity is a theology, which is any goal-directed activity. Many scientists consider objectivity to be “true” science but attempts to eliminate the subjective is rare if not absolute. This search for the absolute is the tendency to provide order to complexity, subjectivity is simplicity and surfaces as a sensation in nature. Consciousness, or awareness, is the ontology of objectivity. Objectivity presupposes a theory of mind (T.O.M.) and this is subjective because of the dynamic state of the flux across time. A framework for defining objectivity is something worth exploring. This is not a red herring fallacy but we are dangerously close to making it so. Let’s cast our nets wide. {lots of opportunities to expand this discussion}

There is a cardinal rule in statistics that correlation does not prove causation. You will find I offer no challenge to this benchmark or any other questionable cause logical fallacy. These fallacies translate from Latin as, “with this, therefore because of this," or "after this, therefore because of this.". When used in tandem, much like the value we glean from probabilistic alternatives to Bayesian explanationism, the possibilities of these probabilities are instrumental to expanding our Popperian perception of reason.

In terms of the East and it’s philosophical presuppositions, I am not an expert. A pioneer in this work, , built a bridge from East to West and his work is still very much unexamined. I might explore this as a future potential for self-edification but for now, I have to claim ignorance and encourage readers to write to me with perspectives ranging from the unique to consensus-based academic approaches. Try and keep your comments of this east/west dialogue to the teleological, goal setting outcomes and social norms. Vacuous ramblings will be met with a swift nonresponse. I am sure you understand my necessity for a meaningful conversation.

Big Data is not partial to the direction of any compass whether it points east or west, south or north. It is, however, problematic interpreting the transcendental and untethered subjectivity of up or down. Let’s consider the examples all around us.


Support Your Friendly Neighbourhood Atelier Today!