Society5.0 and Industry4.0

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Society5.0 and Industry4.0

Post by mrdim » October 13th, 2020, 6:08 pm

Hello. I think that it is about time we discuss what features we would like to see in a future society, or what we can add to our lives leading up to a future society.
I have been researching this for 20 months now, and I have many ideas, but would like to share with you my latest example of an idea, hoping that it could be discussed, and that also any of your ideas could be discussed.

I first need to briefly explain what society5.0 is, and what industry4.0 is.
Society5.0 is the name of the government plan of Japan to implement policies of integrating technology, information and big data into society, and in doing so, achieve a status beyond the current information age, so that we go even further beyond, merging cyberspace with reality and relying on big data and other means to achieve this.

Industry4.0 is interested in very much the same goals, but it has a different, slightly less public-interest led approach. It, too, wants to see what the next industrial revolution will be all about. One organisation that is interested in this, is the World Economic Forum.

On social media, there has been some slight backlash over fears of total manipulation and control by an elite few. But I would ask: if you put yourself in their shoes, would you find yourself making similar decisions such as: a need to collect wider amounts of data on the population for scientific purposes? Take for example this: Suppose that the cure for a deadly disease could only be available if data is collected down to small details, about different dimensions of people's lives, or that there are certain advancements that rely on different forms of experimentation relating to the merging of cyberspace and reality. Would you find yourself making a similar decision?

In light of this, I think it is wise that ordinary people discuss these agendas and decide what is best for them and decide what compromises to make on the way.

You can post your own ideas here about what you would like to see in a future society, but first listen to one of mine:

There could exist an app that comprises of symbols and instructions, and it creates feedback for the user relating to our evolution. If we take the idea of Descartes "I think therefore I am," and realise that additional information about the world is reinforced by this statement and made to be non-arbitrary, then we could deduce that certain classes of non-arbitrary information are of value to us. As an analogy: we can drive a car and consider at that time that driving a motorbike is arbitrary, or we can drive a motorbike and consider the car to be arbitrary.

Next, we can take the idea of Lamarckism and investigate how our evolution towards the future could take ideas of arbitrary and non-arbitrary and make use of it. For example, one indicator that Lamarckism is false is that if you cut the tail off generations of mice, it doesn't pass down the feature of a cut-off tail to future generations. Well, perhaps we could say that the cutting off of the tail falls under the category of 'arbitrary' and therefore is not part of the evolutionary plan, as we might call it.

The app could take information relating to evolution states and create a numerator and denominator set of classes where we cannot reject certain types of information if they are either numerator based or denominator based, because "numerator" and "denominator" are widely representative of the human picture amidst our concept of universe and 'universal. ' It could also consider the aforementioned point about "arbitrary" and "non-arbitrary."

Finally, different mapping samples could be compiled for the user to interact with. It would be a bit like looking at virtual maps/environments as samples of non-arbitrary and arbitrary "I think therefore I am" classifications.

So, thank you for bearing with me explaining that idea.
I would be interested to hear some of yours.

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Society5.0 and Industry4.0

Post by Arjen » October 14th, 2020, 1:13 am

It reminds me of that "social app". People have input what they do where. It keeps track of location, activitiesand conversatioms. A bad score, like because of not visiting parents or grandparents, means no access to public transportation.... And visiting them will be more difficult.
I had a conversation over lunch in a small diner with a guy in August 2019 and this guy was inputting his comments into his app. Like how Hongkong was an internal metter and it is not decent to meddle in it. And that people from Wuhan somehow were all coughing. According to him he would have a good score.

Personally, low tech feels better to me. With thech in research institutes or military bases. Amish style, kind of. But with my PC and internet.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Society5.0 and Industry4.0

Post by mrdim » October 15th, 2020, 12:04 pm

Yes, I think we potentially run into a problem when we are defining exactly how to evolve, because it isn't like points scoring in video games. It is reality. Certainly something to think about. In the future, we might be overly dependent on deterministic absolute values of how to evolve. For the time being, for now, we would just rely on a speculative model.

The trick here lies in modelling the correct science for our evolution. If it comes to the point where we can say "trust in science", then more people will follow. But the problem is obvious: in the universe, there isn't one single solution to evolution. If there are alien civilizations, we might wish to merge with them and scrap our previous plans.

So, a working model of society and evolution is beneficial, but to what end? If everything is a matter of doing things a certain way until something better comes along, doesn't that interfere with experimental values?

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2912
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Society5.0 and Industry4.0

Post by Sculptor1 » October 16th, 2020, 5:02 am

mrdim wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 12:04 pm
Yes, I think we potentially run into a problem when we are defining exactly how to evolve, because it isn't like points scoring in video games. It is reality. Certainly something to think about. In the future, we might be overly dependent on deterministic absolute values of how to evolve. For the time being, for now, we would just rely on a speculative model.

The trick here lies in modelling the correct science for our evolution. If it comes to the point where we can say "trust in science", then more people will follow. But the problem is obvious: in the universe, there isn't one single solution to evolution. If there are alien civilizations, we might wish to merge with them and scrap our previous plans.

So, a working model of society and evolution is beneficial, but to what end? If everything is a matter of doing things a certain way until something better comes along, doesn't that interfere with experimental values?
So what would "better" look like, and who makes that choice?

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Society5.0 and Industry4.0

Post by mrdim » October 16th, 2020, 5:57 pm

Well, I think that when it comes to evolution, we have to create new definitions, and cannot oversimplify matters.
This is why I have just invented two related concepts: "Effort based permutations" and "redeeming factors."

Effort based permutations describes advancements that different races can make at any time, but which are simply relegated to the amount of effort and initiative that a member or members of the race put in.
For example, in Japanese culture, I might want to say: "Why couldn't the Japanese have invented the idea of left brain and right brained thinking?" Would history be improved upon had they invented it first? And so we realise that we can reward ourselves for the amount of effort we put into tasks, by saying that if we put a certain amount of effort into X, we can say that history would have been better off had we put more effort into Y, thus for evolution, this is the way that history ought to look.
And it's not historical revisionism, it is simply idealism in a constructive form.

So if we take the idea of effort based permutations, we can apply it to evolution in terms of activities carried out, and history.

This in turn leads to "redeeming factors." Relating to my previous point about Descartes; if we are imprisoned and all we have is our thoughts, we must find some escape in this universe. If I'm in a prison cell and the cell has a light switch and a desk with a piece of paper on it, then the cell has three redeeming factors. Four if you include a bed, and so on.
Logic dictates that as you multiply and expand the number of redeeming factors, you are eventually freed from the prison and you aren't simply stuck with your own mind.

A race can find it's redeeming factors through the effort it puts into various exploits...

But as for your question of who decides what is best and who makes that choice; all I can say is that different groups would have to make their own choices and hopefully follow constructive models and hypothetical developments. My model, of analysing history and effort, can be applied to the investigation of the pros and cons of alien races too.

However, having said that, there are still collective developments. Memes for example, have influenced the way we see the world. If we look at the effort-based permutations relating to memes, what do we find? We actually find that some cultures are distinctly in favour of constructing different mediums for humour and subversion than others, therefore, people may exercise caution, but overall, it is a cultural phenomenon that seems to spread, and has the potential of having unanimous impact in our evolution as a species.

Post Reply